The instant matter is a personal injury action arising out of an incident on March 14, 2021 where Plaintiff, Jaliska Marte claims that she tripped and fell on an orange safety cone at the Howell, NJ Walmart store.
Defendant argued that the liability report from Plaintiff’s retail expert, Daniel Schroeder, CSM, is an inadmissible net opinion because the expert’s conclusions lack factual basis.
Retail Operations Expert Witness
Daniel Schroeder has nearly two decades of store leadership experience in Big Box, Home Improvement, Grocery, and Specialty Retail areas. He can provide crucial analysis into the inner workings of retail establishments as they inform employee training and inspection protocols which impact the likelihood of slip, trip, and fall accidents.
Discussion by the Court
Here, the Court found Schroeder’s expert opinion riddled with inadmissible net opinions. For example, Schroeder opined that, by allowing the cone to remain tipped over, Defendant violated its own policy and procedures based upon Schroeder’s experience in the retail industry. This assertion lacked factual foundation because Schroeder neither cites Defendant’s policies and procedures in his report nor lists Defendant’s policies and procedures in the “Works Cited” section of the report. Moreover, there is no discussion in the report as to what Defendant’s policies and procedures are and how Defendant violated them.
Additionally, there is no discussion in the report as to what Defendant’s policies and procedures are and how Defendant violated them. Moreover, there is no information regarding Schroeder’s experience contained within the report—such as a curriculum vitae or publications—or discussion about such experience that would lend support for this opinion. This conclusion therefore lacked the “why and wherefore” required by an expert report.
Schroeder additionally concluded that the person wearing an apron could have eliminated the hazard posed by the tipped-over cone because “it is the responsibility of the store leadership and staff to actively look for hazards during their work shifts in order to maintain a safe shopping environment.” This contention similarly lacked the “why and wherefore” necessary for expert reports because Schroeder offered no explanation or discussion for his finding that the person wearing an apron was Defendant’s employee.
Analysis
Connecting his two assertions, Schroeder ultimately concluded that Defendant was responsible for Plaintiff’s fall and resulting injuries because: (1) “there was a specific opportunity for the hazard to be observed, identified, and eliminated before the incident by the employee walking past the safety cone less than 1 minute before the incident”; (2) “had the area been adequately inspected, monitored, and maintained reasonably safe and in compliance with the subject documentation, the subject condition would have been corrected”; and (3) Defendant’s “responsibility comes in the form of training and procedures to ensure that store leadership, as well as their employees recognize, mitigate, and eliminate potential risks in a reasonable manner.” Without any discussion of Defendant’s policies and procedures or deposition testimony by Defendant’s corporate representative to support Schroeder’s conclusion of liability, his report constitutes nothing more than bare conclusions in Plaintiff’s favor.
Held
The Court, accordingly, found that Daniel Schroeder’s report is a net opinion.
Key Takeaway
An expert’s bare conclusions, unsupported by factual evidence are an inadmissible net opinion. The net opinion rule requires the expert to give the why and wherefore of the opinion, rather than a mere conclusion.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Marte V. Walmart, Inc. |
| Docket Number: | 3:23cv11081 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, New Jersey |
| Order Date: | June 16, 2026 |
Leave a Reply