Expert Witness Profiler

Category: Architecture Expert Witness

  • Architecture Expert Witness Barred From Offering Legal Conclusions Regarding an Unreasonable Risk of Harm

    Architecture Expert Witness Barred From Offering Legal Conclusions Regarding an Unreasonable Risk of Harm

    This case involves injuries caused by a falling sign at a retail store. Allison Howard alleged that on March 27, 2023, she was shopping in a Target store when she was hit in the neck and upper back by an improperly attached metal and wooden sign that fell from the top shelf of the aisle she was shopping in. Howard claimed that she did not cause the sign to fall.

    At her deposition, Howard testified that the accident occurred when her ex-husband, Isaiah Laborde, who was playing catch with her children, tossed a stuffed animal (specifically, the crab Sebastian from the Little Mermaid) in the air and it hit the sign, causing it to fall. Laborde confirmed the same at his deposition. Nonetheless, Howard alleged that Target’s negligence caused the accident, and she sought various damages for her resulting injuries.

    Howard hired Mitchell Wood as a liability expert to support her theory of the case. Target argued that Wood should be precluded from testifying for a myriad of reasons.

    Architecture Expert Witness

    Mitchell Wood holds degrees in architecture and civil engineering, has been a licensed architect for 36 years and a licensed commercial general contractor and residential builder for more than 25 years. He owns an architectural design and planning firm that performs residential and commercial design services, building and safety code reviews, site inspections, and project management. He also owns a residential and commercial building business. Wood has been involved in commercial and retail building design projects, including designing safe walkways. He has been accepted as an expert witness by Louisiana federal and state courts in the fields of construction, inspection, project management, site safety, architecture and design, and building codes.

    Get the full story on challenges to Mitchell Wood’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study. 

    Discussion by the Court

    Mitchell Wood

    Wood, after reading the complaint and Laborde’s deposition, studying photographs of the accident scene and the sign, and examining the stuffed animal (which weighs 1.27 ounces), issued a report in which he opined “that the metal/wood sign was not anchored in or attached to the support bracket in a secure manner.”

    He stated that he deduced this opinion from the relatively light weight of the stuffed animal, which he said should not have been able to detach the heavier sign from the bracket.

    Wood further opined that Target knew, or should have known, of the unsafe manner in which the sign was attached to the overhead bracket. And he stated that “Target’s failure to safely attach this metal/wood sign to the support bracket in question created a hazardous condition which resulted in an unreasonable risk of harm to its customers” that “could have been easily rectified by properly anchoring the metal/wood sign with a screw and/or bolt.”

    Finally, according to Wood, “the hazardous condition and unreasonable risk of harm created by Target is a ‘prima facie’ cause and cause-in-fact of Howard’s injuries.”

    Parties’ Positions

    First, Target argued that, as an architect and general contractor, Wood is unqualified to render opinions in this matter because he does not have any experience or qualifications related to retail signage or falling merchandise claims, has never published on those subjects, and is not a retail safety expert. Next, Target contended that Wood’s opinions are unreliable because he did not inspect the sign, did not take into account Laborde’s actions as a cause of the accident, and did not conduct a duty-risk analysis before concluding that Target was at fault. Finally, Target argued that Wood’s opinions that a dangerous condition existed and that Target knew, or should have known, about it should be excluded as improper legal conclusions that will not assist the jury.

    In opposition, Howard argued that Wood is qualified to render the opinions he stated in his report because he has decades of experience as an architect and contractor, including experience working on the design and safety of commercial buildings. She then recounts counsel’s efforts to arrange for Wood to inspect the property and blames Target for the lack of inspection. Howard contended that Wood’s opinions are relevant and reliable because he can testify as to the difference in the weight between the objects involved – a 1.27 ounce stuffed animal as compared to a 2.79 pound sign – and explain that the toy should not have been able to dislodge the sign if the sign was secured properly.

    Howard also argued that Wood can explain the cost-benefit analysis regarding Target’s layout and alterative signage attachment systems. Finally, Howard argued that Wood’s opinions would be helpful to the jury because most jurors are not familiar with “retail signage attachment systems and general pedestrian safety precautions in a retail store setting.”

    Analysis

    Having weighed Wood’s report and qualifications against the arguments presented, the Court found that Wood’s education and experience qualify him to render the opinions expressed regarding the relative weights of the objects involved in the incident and available alternative methods for anchoring the sign. Those opinions are relevant and reliable. However, Wood may not offer any opinions as to ultimate factual or legal conclusions, including whether Target knew, or should have known, there was an unsafe condition, whether Target created an unreasonable risk of harm, and what constitutes a prima facie cause or cause-in-fact of the accident and injuries. These matters are reserved for either the factfinder or the Court.

    Held

    The Court granted Target’s motion in limine to exclude Mitchell Wood’s testimony as to precluding Wood from testifying as to ultimate factual and legal conclusions, including whether Target knew, or should have known, there was an unsafe condition, whether Target created an unreasonable risk of harm, and what was a prima facie cause or cause-in-fact of the accident and injuries. The motion is otherwise denied.

    Key Takeaway:

    Wood was barred from testifying as to ultimate factual and legal conclusions, but his education and experience qualify him to render opinions regarding the relative weights of the objects involved in the incident and available alternative methods for anchoring the sign.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Howard V. Target Corporation Of Minnesota
    Docket Number: 2:24cv252
    Court: United States District Court, Louisiana Eastern
    Order Date: October 31, 2024
  • Architecture Expert Witness Fails to Establish the Reliability of his Stability Testing Methodology

    Architecture Expert Witness Fails to Establish the Reliability of his Stability Testing Methodology

    A district judge in Louisiana limited the testimony of a renowned architect, citing a complete failure to explain the origin of his methodology or to point to scientific support for the technique that reliably predicts the likelihood that a canopy on display in a store is dangerous, despite his years of experience.

    To begin with, the Plaintiff alleged that she sustained personal injuries after a canopy purportedly fell off of the shelf and struck her on the back of her neck and head while she was visiting Academy store number 171 located in Metairie, Louisiana.

    To attempt to prove that the canopy display was dangerous in a manner that caused the Plaintiff to be injured, the Plaintiff retained Mark E. Williams, a licensed architect and professional litigation consultant.

    Williams had two primary opinions. First, Williams opined that the vertical display of the canopies was unreasonably dangerous. Second, Williams opined that the unreasonably dangerous display of the canopies caused the Plaintiff to be struck and injured.

    Academy argued Williams had no relevant experience in the retail industry and, thus, was “plainly not qualified” to testify or offer any opinions regarding retail safety. Academy further contended Williams’ methodology was neither scientific nor reliable as required under Daubert; Williams’ opinions will not assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence or determining a fact at issue as required by Federal Rule of Evidence 702; and Williams’ opinions on causation should be excluded given his lack of medical expertise and because allowing him to testify about the ultimate issue would permit him to invade the province of the jury. Finally, Academy asserted, Williams should not be allowed to offer any testimony as to Academy’s overall store sales because this information is irrelevant in this falling merchandise lawsuit.

    Architecture Expert Witness Fails to Establish the Reliability of his Stability Testing Methodology

    Architecture Expert Witness

    Mark E. Williams is a broadly experienced registered architect. He has had a diverse career that includes the design and construction of fast-food restaurants, postal facilities, multi-family residential developments, hotels and motels, nursing home and assisted living facilities. Williams provides technical investigations, analysis, reports, and testimony for failure analysis, and towards the resolution of commercial and personal injury litigation involving slip, trip, and fall injuries, code compliance, accessibility, construction claims and disputes, aspects of property management, construction materials, and architectural professional liability.

    He is licensed in multiple states throughout the Southeast and is certified by the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards.

    To learn about other cases where Mark E. Williams has been involved as an expert witness, order an Expert Witness Profile report.

    Discussion by the Court

    Williams’ report offered eight opinions:

    1. The canopy display with unrestrained carry bags placed upright was dangerous in a manner that caused Rome to be struck and injured.

    2. The canopy display with unrestrained carry bags placed upright was dangerous because it posed a hazard to shoppers browsing merchandise that violated nationally recognized standards for safe retail displays.

    3. Displaying the canopy bag with the base inverted placed the wheels pointed up, which increased the likelihood that it would lean, become unstable, and topple off the shelf, particularly if unrestrained.

    4. The lack of any guard or restraining device at the canopy display made it foreseeable that the upright carry bag would topple off the shelf and strike Rome.

    5. Reasonable periodic inspections of the store aisles in accordance with nationally recognized standards for safe retail practices would have reliably identified the dangerous canopy display that caused Rome to be struck and injured.

    6. Those responsible for customer safety should have known that the canopy display of unrestrained carry bags placed vertically with the wheels pointed up was dangerous and taken appropriate measures to protect customers.

    7. The failure of Academy Sports + Outdoors to comply with its Planogram for the canopy display violated corporate specifications for safety and exposed Rome to the dangerous condition that caused her to be struck and injured.

    8. The failure of Academy Sports + Outdoors to maintain the canopy display in accordance with applicable safety practices of the retail industry violated the standard of care, and created the dangerous condition that caused Rome to be struck and injured.

    Qualification as an Expert and Testimony Regarding Best Safety Practices

    Academy argued that Williams’ review of best practices for retail displays did not render him an expert in that field, and the “best practices” Williams cited could be summarized as ensuring that merchandise was displayed safely.

    To support its opinions regarding Academy’s canopy display vis-à-vis retail industry best practices, Williams reviewed, inter alia, the pleadings in this matter, Academy’s discovery responses and document production, surveillance videos, post-incident photographs, the National Safety Council’s Accident Prevention Manual for Business & Industry, Loss Control: A Safety Guidebook for Trades and Services, and safety publications and policies of other retailers.

    Williams is a licensed architect whose education, training, and experience included the design and planning of commercial and retail buildings, including those containing shelving systems and palletized storage.

    Although William did not have any credentials specific to the retail safety sector, the Court noted that his education and experience equipped him to assess and explain best safety practices.

    Moreover, his synthesis of this information will assist the trier of fact in understanding safety standards in the retail space and whether Academy adhered to those standards.

    Stability Testing Methodology

    The Court considered three of Williams’ conclusions involving Academy’s placement and display of canopies to determine the reliability of Williams’ stability testing methodology.

    Williams testified that he tested the stability of a 10-by-10 Easy Shade Canopy by weighing the object in two orientations multiple times, placing it horizontally and observing that it was stable, then placing it vertically on a hard surface and using a spring scale to apply force to the canopy to determine how much force was necessary to render the canopy unstable. Williams then placed the canopy on a hard surface for an extended period of time to confirm that the solid material of the canopy “conformed to the topography of the canvas bag,” which “added to the instability when it’s upright in a vertical position and not restrained.” The “exemplar canopy” that Williams used for his testing, unlike the canopy that purportedly struck Plaintiff, did not have wheels or feet. 

    Williams’ total failure to explain the origin of his methodology or point to some scientific support for the technique reliably predicting the likelihood that a canopy on display in a store is dangerous gave the Court, charged with the obligation of serving as a gatekeeper under applicable law, a great deal of pause and concern.

    The methodology is unreliable in that Williams performed his test on a tent without wheels or feet, features he concluded would affect the stability of a vertically displayed canopy. Even if the Plaintiff met her burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Williams’ methodology was reliable, she failed to demonstrate the relevance of Williams’ testimony.

    Relevance

    Williams’ testing of a canopy that did not have wheels and feet is irrelevant to the determination of whether the canopy that allegedly struck the Plaintiff, a canopy that had wheels and feet, was unreasonably dangerous based on its purported instability. Even if this mismatched analysis could provide the jury with an understanding of how the specific tent that struck Plaintiff may have fallen onto her, such an opinion is unnecessary.

    A reasonable lay person, looking at a long, narrow object stood vertically, is capable of concluding how it might move based on an imbalance or applied pressure and can do so without a scientific explanation. The Court found this to be a matter of common sense, and common sense is the bailiwick and jurisdiction of the jury.

    Causation

    Defendant sought to preclude Williams from testifying about causation, specifically Williams’ conclusion about the allegedly dangerous design of the canopy display. Plaintiff has indicated that Williams will not testify about the extent of injuries Plaintiff allegedly sustained. However, the Court has not yet decided whether Williams may testify that Academy’s purportedly unsafe display of canopies caused one of them to fall and strike Plaintiff. Defendant argues that he may not because to do so is to invade the province of the jury by addressing the ultimate issue in this case.

    The Fifth Circuit has made clear that Rule 704(a) “does not allow a witness to give legal conclusions.”

    The final portion of Williams’ opinions about certain elements which caused Rome’s injuries cross into the realm of legal conclusions.

    While Williams may testify about the potential danger of the canopy display due to its alleged non-compliance with the store’s planogram and industry best practices, the Court found he cannot state that such dangers caused the Plaintiff’s purported harm.

    Academy’s Overall Sales

    The Court deferred ruling on this issue, emphasizing the need to hear any potential testimony by Williams regarding Academy’s overall sales in context.

    Held

    The Court granted in part, denied in part, and deferred in part Academy’s motion in limine to exclude or limit the testimony of Mark E. Williams.

    Key Takeaways:

    • Williams’ curriculum vitae reflects over 30 years’ experience as an architect with responsibilities including quality assurance policy and procedure, code and technical research, and safety and security installations. Although William does not have any credentials specific to the retail safety sector, his education and experience well equips him to assess and explain best safety practices. His synthesis of this information will assist the trier of fact in understanding safety standards in the retail space and whether Academy adhered to those standards. 
    • Expert testimony is unnecessary where a jury can adeptly assess the situation using only their common experience and knowledge. A reasonable lay person, looking at a long, narrow object stood vertically, is capable of concluding how it might move based on an imbalance or applied pressure and can do so without a scientific explanation. The Court finds this is a matter of common sense, and common sense is the bailiwick and jurisdiction of the jury. That being the case, and given its lack of reliable methodology and relevance, the Court excluded Williams’ testimony regarding his testing of an exemplar tent.
    • While courts must conduct the Daubert analysis “flexibly” and the factors identified therein “may or may not be pertinent in assessing reliability, depending on the nature of the issue, the expert’s particular expertise, and the subject of his testimony,” Williams’ total failure to explain the origin of his methodology or point to some scientific support for the technique reliably predicting the likelihood that a canopy on display in a store is dangerous gives this Court, charged with the obligation of serving as a gatekeeper under applicable law, a great deal of pause and concern. 

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Rome V. Academy Sports & Outdoors, Inc Et Al
    Docket Number: 2:22cv583
    Court: United States District Court, Louisiana Eastern
    Order Date: April 15, 2024
  • Architecture Expert Witness Testimony on Causation and Floor Safety Admitted

    Architecture Expert Witness Testimony on Causation and Floor Safety Admitted

    On December 12, 2020, Lynda S. Rowland and Patricia M. Stallcup planned to dine at the Outback Steakhouse in Shreveport.  Rowland, who arrived first, slipped while walking to a small booth in the lounge area but managed to break her fall by reaching and grabbing the back of an adjacent booth. Shortly after,  Stallcup arrived and also slipped as she approached the booth where  Rowland was waiting.  Stallcup fell to the floor onto her knees. Both individuals suffered personal injuries from the slips, with  Rowland primarily to her knees and  Stallcup to her ankle and back.

    The Plaintiffs individually initiated legal actions against the Defendants in the First Judicial District Court, Caddo Parish, State of Louisiana. The Defendants subsequently removed the suits to Louisiana Western District Court, citing diversity of citizens. The Court consolidated the separate suits.

    The Defendants, namely Outback Steakhouse of Florida, LLC, d/b/a Outback Steakhouse, Bloomin Brands, Inc. d/b/a Outback Steakhouse, and National Retail Properties, L.P., argued that  Rowland was in proximity to the booth where she allegedly slipped but did not fall.  Rowland stated she neither saw anything on the ground nor touched the floor or the bottom of her shoes. She testified that an Outback employee wiped the floor after her slip, and she observed nothing on the towel.

     Stallcup, walking toward  Rowland, fell at least one booth away from their original position. Initially, she fell on her knees and then landed on her buttocks. Neither  Stallcup nor  Rowland noticed anything on the floor before or after the incident.  Stallcup was unaware of any residue on her knees, buttocks, or shoes. She testified that a different Outback employee cleaned the area where she fell, and neither of them observed anything on that towel.

    To conclude, this slip and fall case involves two incidents that occurred on December 12, 2020, at the Outback Steakhouse restaurant in Shreveport, Louisiana. Plaintiffs Lynda Rowland and Patricia Stallcup claim that inadequate maintenance leading to a slippery floor caused their accidents and resulting injuries on that date. The Defendants, Outback Steakhouse, dispute these claims, contending, among other arguments, that no hazardous condition existed. Both parties presented expert testimony regarding causation under Louisiana’s Merchant Liability Statute, La. R.S. 9:2800.6(B).

    The Court had before it two Daubert Motions: firstly, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Exclude the Testimony, Report, and Opinions of Defendants’ Expert Mitchell Wood, and secondly, Defendants submitted a Motion to Exclude the Testimony, Report, and Opinions of Plaintiffs’ Expert Jason English. Additionally, Defendants filed a Motion to Strike the Affidavit of Jason English.

    Architecture Expert Witness

    Mitchell Allen Wood, currently serving as the Principal at ArchitectniX APAC, brings a wealth of expertise to his role, grounded in a comprehensive educational background and extensive work experience. He has obtained a Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering from Louisiana State University and a Bachelor of architecture from Tulane University. He has further completed a Masters of Architecture from Tulane University and a Masters of Business Administration from the University of Maryland. Over the course of his career, Wood has been involved in numerous new, repair, and renovation projects, specifically in culinary and eating facilities. With a background in code enforcement and a keen understanding of restaurant environments, he possesses a thorough awareness of the safety requirements for pedestrian means of egress, emphasizing the need for hazard-free and secure pathways.

    Safety Engineering Expert Witnesses

    Jason T. English, is a seasoned professional engineering consultant who specializes in safety engineering, encompassing workplace safety, premises safety, product safety, safety management, and human factors/ergonomics. He holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Industrial Engineering and a Master of Science degree in Safety Engineering, both earned at Texas A&M University (College Station). He owns English Engineering Inc., which provides professional consultation services in the field of safety engineering, to include workplace safety, premises safety, product safety, and human factors/ergonomics.

    Discussions by the Court

    Federal Rule of Evidence 702 governs the admissibility of expert testimony, requiring the proponent to demonstrate that the expert’s knowledge will aid the trier of fact, the testimony is based on sufficient facts, the methods are reliable, and the application to the case is reliable. The Daubert factors, including testability, peer review, error rate, and general acceptance, guide the evaluation of reliability. The trial court acts as a gatekeeper, ensuring the testimony is both reliable and relevant. However, the Court’s role is not a replacement for the adversary system, and the rejection of expert testimony is the exception rather than the rule. Vigorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof are emphasized. The proponent bears the burden of proving that the expert testimony meets Rule 702 requirements. 

    The Plaintiffs sought to exclude the testimony of defense expert Mitchell Wood, alleging that his causation opinions were unreliable and that he lacked the necessary education and training as a safety engineer to qualify for giving opinions on floor maintenance. However, the Court, after evaluating Wood’s credentials and extensive experience, determined that he was qualified to testify as an expert in the case, including offering opinions on causation and floor safety. The Court highlighted Wood’s educational background, which included a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering and master’s and bachelor’s degrees in architecture. Furthermore, Wood held licenses in commercial construction, inspection, and architecture, and his 34 years of experience as a certified code review architect, licensed general contractor, licensed building inspector, and civil engineer were considered as additional qualifications for his role as an expert in the case.

    The Court determined that Mitchell Wood’s opinions and report were grounded in sufficient facts and data. Upon review of the record, the Court found no mischaracterization of facts or use of inadmissible evidence in Wood’s work. It was observed that Wood had considered, for the most part, the same evidence that the Plaintiffs’ expert had reviewed. The Court advised the Plaintiffs to focus on robust cross-examination and the presentation of contrary evidence to contest Wood’s opinions. Additionally, the Court believed that Wood’s expert opinions would aid the jury in considering Section 2800.6(B). Consequently, the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Exclude the Testimony, Report, and Opinions of Defendants’ Expert Mitchell Wood was denied.

    Defendants raised objections to the report of Plaintiffs’ expert, Jason English, arguing that it contained numerous speculative assumptions and conjectures without factual evidence to support them. The defense asserted that English’s report was unreliable and irrelevant to the elements required in Section 2800.6(B). Specifically, Defendants criticized English’s theories of causation related to grease build-up on the floor and the use of improper cleaning products, claiming that these theories would mislead and confuse the jury.

    In response, Plaintiffs reiterated their focus on English’s report and introduced an affidavit from English, emphasizing factors relevant to determining whether the floor maintenance practices at Outback created an unreasonably dangerous condition. However, Defendants filed a Motion to Strike the affidavit, contending that it violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(D) as the additional information should have been included in English’s initial report.

    After thorough review of the arguments presented in both defense motions, the Court acknowledged that presenting the affidavit in response to the defense Daubert motion was not ideal. However, the potential prejudice to the defense was considered to be mitigated by the trial date being reset to May 2024. The Court expressed the belief that Jason English’s explanations and opinions, covering various standards in the restaurant industry, technical aspects of floor cleaning fluids and methods, proper application, and the consequences of improper use, were grounded in sufficient factual evidence. The Court concluded that English’s testimony would assist the jury in evaluating the elements required under Section 2800.6(B). It was noted that the defense retained the option to conduct rigorous cross-examination, and jurors would be instructed to weigh English’s testimony appropriately based on the facts and testimony presented during the trial. Consequently, both Defendants’ Motion to Exclude the Testimony, Report, and Opinions of Plaintiffs’ Expert Jason English and Defendants’ Motion to Strike the Affidavit of Jason English were denied.

    Held 

    The Court denied Plaintiffs’ Motion to Exclude the Testimony, Report, and Opinions of Defendants’ Expert Mitchell Wood. Furthermore, the Court denied both Defendants’ Motion to Exclude the Testimony, Report, and Opinions of Plaintiffs’ Expert Jason English and Defendants’ Motion to Strike the Affidavit of Jason English.

    The Court has not arrived on an outcome for this case since the remaining issues involved in this case still await resolution.

    Key Takeaways

    In this slip and fall case stemming from incidents at an Outback Steakhouse, both parties presented expert testimony related to causation under Louisiana’s Merchant Liability Statute. The Court addressed Daubert motions concerning the admissibility of expert testimony, focusing on the qualifications and reliability of the experts. Plaintiffs sought to exclude the testimony of defense expert Mitchell Wood, citing his lack of requisite qualifications. However, the Court determined that Wood’s extensive experience and education qualified him to testify, and his opinions were grounded in sufficient facts. The Court encouraged vigorous cross-examination by the Plaintiffs. On the other hand, Defendants challenged the reliability and relevance of Plaintiffs’ expert, Jason English, arguing that his report contained speculative assumptions. On presenting an affidavit from English in response to the Daubert motion, the Court allowed it despite allegations that the affidavit violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, stating that potential prejudice was mitigated by the trial date being reset. The Court deemed English’s opinions, covering restaurant industry standards and floor maintenance practices, grounded in sufficient factual evidence, and concluded that his testimony would aid the jury. Both experts’ testimonies were deemed admissible, underscoring the importance of thorough qualifications, reliability, and flexibility in applying Daubert principles in expert testimony admissibility.

    Case Details 

    Case Caption Rowland v. Outback Steakhouse of Fla., LLC
    Docket Number 5:22cv667
    Court United States District Court, Louisiana Western
    Citation 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9648
    Order Date January 18, 2024