Tag: Restroom

  • Mechanical Engineering Expert Allowed to Opine on Tile Flooring

    Mechanical Engineering Expert Allowed to Opine on Tile Flooring

    This matter arises out of a slip and fall incident that occurred in the restroom at the Waffle House restaurant in Dillon, South Carolina. On January 3, 2020, Plaintiff Loretta Diaz entered the ladies’ restroom at the Defendants’ Waffle House location and traversed the restroom floor, when she slipped and fell on a foreign substance that had accumulated on the floor.

    Plaintiff alleged in her complaint that the Defendants failed to maintain its property in a reasonably safe manner.

    Plaintiff retained Dr. Bryan Durig to render an expert opinion as to the engineering of and the slip-resistance of the restroom floor. Defendants argued that Durig’s opinions in this case must be excluded because Durig performed a wet test of randomly selected tiles—rather than reading Plaintiff’s testimony about her slip and fall—and did not use the actual substance Plaintiff fell on for the test.

    Mechanical Engineering Expert Witness

    Dr. Bryan R. Durig is a registered professional engineer in the states of South Carolina and North Carolina, holds a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering, and is certified as a forensic slip expert by the National Institute of Forensic Studies.

    Discover more cases with Bryan Durig as an expert witness by ordering his comprehensive Expert Witness Profile report.

    Discussion by the Court

    In his report, Durig explained that he examined and tested the tile flooring in the ladies’ restroom of the Dillon Waffle House and that it failed to meet the minimum wet dynamic coefficient of friction required by industry standards to be considered slip resistant; thus, he opined that the flooring did not meet building codes or industry standards for a slip-resistant walking surface.

    Defendants did not challenge Durig’s qualifications as an expert witness. Instead, Defendants contended that Durig’s testimony is irrelevant, immaterial, and unreliable under controlling South Carolina law because he tested the coefficient of friction of the restroom tiles only when they were wet rather than both when they were wet and when they were dry. They also argued that Durig’s opinion is unreliable because he was unfamiliar with Plaintiff’s deposition testimony, believed that the foreign substance Plaintiff slipped on was Coke rather than water, and did not know where in the ladies’ restroom Plaintiff slipped and fell.

    Finally, Defendants asserted that Durig’s testing used a soap solution rather than water, that he presented no evidence to establish that the methodology used was peer-reviewed and scientifically approved, that he showed a lack of understanding regarding the tests and significance of the result numbers, and that he used a standard promulgated in 2022 for an accident that occurred in January 2020.

    Analysis

    The National Floor Safety Institute (“NFSI”) was designated as the standards developer for the ANSI in June 2006 to develop standards for safety requirements for slip, trip, and fall prevention, and ANSI approved the first NFSI standard in October 2009. 

    Durig tested for the wet dynamic coefficient of friction of three flooring tiles in the ladies’ restroom of the Dillon Waffle House in accordance with the ANSI/NFSI B101.3 industry standard. Durig testified that he tested the wet dynamic coefficient of friction and did not test the floor in a dry condition because Plaintiff had stated she slipped on a liquid foreign substance.

    As a result, the Court concluded that Durig’s opinion is based on a reliable methodology. Indeed, most of the issues Defendants raised to challenge Durig’s opinion and testimony are fodder for cross examination and did not render Durig’s opinion unreliable.

    Held

    The Court denied the Defendants’ motion to exclude the testimony of Bryan Durig.

    Key Takeaway

    The interests of justice favor leaving the difficult issues in the hands of the jury and relying on the safeguards of the adversary system—Durig’s testimony should be attacked by cross examination, contrary evidence, and attention to the burden of proof, not exclusion.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Diaz V. Waffle House Inc.
    Docket Number: 4:23cv45
    Court Name: United States District Court, South Carolina
    Order Date: January 09, 2026
  • Adolescent Health Expert’s Testimony on Brain-Scan Studies Excluded

    Adolescent Health Expert’s Testimony on Brain-Scan Studies Excluded

    A.C. is a transgender boy who attends Martinsville High School. Prior to attending Martinsville High School, he attended John R. Wooden Middle School (“Wooden Middle”). While attending Wooden Middle, A.C. sought to use the boys’ restroom, the restroom he felt most comfortable using, but was denied access by the School District. The School District offered him the use of the school’s single-sex restroom instead.

    A.C. filed the instant lawsuit against the School District, citing Title IX and Equal Protection violations.

    The School District designated Dr. Kristopher E. Kaliebe as an expert witness to offer opinions concerning the care of youth with gender dysphoria. Plaintiff A.C. filed a motion to exclude the testimony of Kaliebe while Defendant Metropolitan School District of Martinsville filed a motion to exclude the testimony of James D. Fortenberry, M.D., M.S., who has been disclosed as an expert by Plaintiff.

    Psychiatry Expert Witness

    Kristopher Edward Kaliebe, MD is a Professor of Psychiatry at University of South Florida, in Tampa Florida. He is Board Certified in Psychiatry, Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Forensic Psychiatry. He is a Distinguished Fellow at the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP). His clinical work has been primarily in University clinics, Federally Qualified Health Centers and juvenile corrections.

    Want to know more about the challenges Kristopher Kaliebe has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report.

    Adolescent Health Expert Witness

    Dr. James Dennis Fortenberry is Professor of Pediatrics at Indiana University School of Medicine. He served as Division Chief from 2015 – 2020. He also holds an adjunct appointment in epidemiology in the Fairbanks School of Public Health and is a member of the Center for Sexual Promotion at Indiana University.

    Fortenberry is a member of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, the Society for Adolescent Health & Medicine, the International Academy for Sex Research, the American STD Association, and the Society for Scientific Study of Sex. He is past president of the International Academy for Sex Research, and past-president of the American STD Association, a fellow of the Society for Scientific Study of Sex, and past chair of the Board of Directors of the American Sexual Health association.

    Fortify your strategy by reviewing a Challenge Study detailing grounds for excluding James D. Fortenberry’s expert testimony

    Discussion by the Court

    A.C.’s Motion to Exclude Testimony of Kaliebe

    A.C. argued that Kaliebe is not qualified to render opinions concerning gender dysphoria and social transition, Kaliebe’s opinions generally are not reliable, and Kaliebe’s opinions are irrelevant in assessing the damages caused for the emotional distress and physical discomfort A.C. experienced.

    A.C. narrows in on the fact Kaliebe has no clinical experience on the issue at hand in this case – the denial of a form of social transition, restroom usage, to a gender dysphoric youth.

    The School District details how Kaliebe’s testimony is relevant (1) to dispute whether their position regarding bathroom access is the cause of any irreparable injury to A.C.; (2) to the balancing harms analysis set forth in the permanent injunction consideration; and (3) to demonstrate that the public’s interest would not be served by a permanent injunction. However, there is no argument as to how this testimony relates to damages.

    Given the Court’s granting of the permanent injunction, the merits of the permanent injunction request are no longer an issue for trial. Therefore, the Court decided that Kaliebe’s proposed testimony is no longer relevant.

    The School District’s Motion to Exclude Testimony of Fortenberry

    The School sought to exclude the testimony of James D. Fortenberry, who opined that A.C. would suffer adverse effects if he is denied continued use of the boys’ restroom. The School District also sought to exclude Fortenberry’s testimony as to the genetic or brain-scan studies suggesting that there is a biological component to gender identity because those are areas outside his alleged expertise.

    Fortenberry’s Testimony on Harm Caused to Transgender Youth

    A.C. convincingly argued that most of Fortenberry’s testimony is necessary and relevant to demonstrate the types of harm – both physical and emotional – that transgender youth suffer. Fortenberry’s opinion that “forced use of facilities that contravene [A.C.’s] gender experience and identity are reasonably expected to cause adverse effects on relationships with his school, his safety at school, and his mental health” speaks to the harm A.C. experienced when he was denied access to the boys’ restroom prior to this Court’s grant of a preliminary injunction. Similarly, testimony about how youth react to the denial of access to appropriate restrooms and suicidality rates in transgender youth provides relevant background to the harms affiliated with gender dysphoria. A.C. testified that he made comments to his mom about not wanting to live trapped in a female’s body. This testimony is directly related to suicidal ideations in transgender youth.

    Fortenberry’s Testimony on Studies Demonstrating there is a Biological Component to Gender Identity

    However, A.C. has not successfully demonstrated how Fortenberry’s testimony that “gender expression/identity is not a ‘choice’” or testimony about genetic or brain-scan studies is relevant information that can help a jury understand gender dysphoria as it relates to A.C. specifically. A.C. argued that testimony about brain scans is necessary to explain his opinion that being transgender is not a choice. But A.C. did not explain how transgender status being a choice, opposed to a biological making, makes the harm he faced by the School District’s actions more or less probable. For this reason, the Court barred Fortenberry from discussing whether or not gender identity is a choice and from discussing genetic or brain-scan studies.

    The School District also argued that reports of the experiences of other young people with gender dysphoria should be excluded because it is hearsay, confusing to the jury, and unduly prejudicial. Fortenberry may communicate what he observed and heard to establish the basis of his opinion.

    Therefore, the Court held that while Fortenberry may testify about the harm caused to transgender youth who are denied the ability to socially transition,
    and the suicide rates of transgender youth, he may not testify about whether
    transgender status is a choice or studies demonstrating there is a biological component to gender identity.

    Held

    • The Court granted A.C.’s motion to exclude the testimony of Kristopher Kaliebe.
    • The Court granted in part and denied in part the School District’s motion to exclude the testimony of James Fortenberry.

    Key Takeaway:

    Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and the fact is of consequence in determining the action. In this case, Fortenberry’s testimony is relevant to demonstrate the type of harms – both physical and emotional – that A.C. was caused by the School District restricting his access to the boys’ restroom. His testimony as to the danger of suicidality in transgender young persons is necessary to demonstrate how serious gender dysphoria is.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: A.C. V. Metropolitan School District Of Martinsville Et Al
    Docket Number: 1:21cv2965
    Court Name: United States District Court, Indiana Southern
    Order Date: August 27, 2025