Expert Witness Profiler

Tag: Safety Standards

  • Civil Engineering Expert Allowed to Opine on Speed Bumps

    Civil Engineering Expert Allowed to Opine on Speed Bumps

    Plaintiff Luz Query tripped and fell over a speed bump located in the parking lot of the Costco warehouse in New Orleans, Louisiana.

    Plaintiffs, Luz Query and Lance Query brought this negligence action seeking damages for Luz’s past and future medicals, pain and suffering, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life, and for Lance’s loss of consortium.

    Defendant asked the Court to exclude Plaintiffs’ expert, Neil B. Hall, PhD because his testing methods cannot be reproduced and he did not base his opinions on applicable safety standards. 

    Civil Engineering Expert Witness

    Neil Bradley Hall is a licensed professional engineer, architect, landscape architect and interior designer with 20 years of design/build experience with the Army Corps of Engineers and Navy Civil Engineer Corps, in addition to more than 30 years of experience in the field and courtroom as a forensic engineer in private practice.

    Want to know more about the challenges Neil B. Hall has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report. 

    Discussion by the Court

    First, Defendants did not challenge the legitimacy of the ASTM standards nor their general acceptance in the community as a reasonable set of standards upon which to base one’s opinions. Defendant argued that Hall’s opinions should be excluded because he did not reference any other set of safety standards. But Defendant cited no case where a Court has excluded an expert because they referenced only one widely accepted set of safety standards. The Court will not exclude Hall on that basis.

    Costco also presses that the opinions are irrelevant because the City of New Orleans does not require Costco to adhere to the ASTM safety standards. That the City of New Orleans did not require Costco to have ASTM-compliant speed bumps in its parking lots did not mean that the ASTM standards are illegitimate, unaccepted in the broad community of experts, or are otherwise unfit to be referenced as a standardized suggestion of recommended safety practices. Overall, the Court will not exclude Hall just because he relied upon the ASTM.

    Second, Defendant suggested that Hall’s report did not rest on reliable principles and methods because, for example, he did not perform any “testing.” But replicable tests, for example, are not a black letter requirement under Rule 702 nor Daubert.

    Third, Costco separately challenged the report as irrelevant because his proffered observations are within the common experience and understanding of jurors.  Here, because the ASTM standards purportedly do not apply to Costco, Hall is in a unique position to explain the benefits and risks of Costco deciding to follow the guidelines suggested in a general set of safety standards, like those offered in the ASTM. Hall’s assistance to the trier of fact is further supported by his years of experience studying urban planning, architecture, and as a licensed civil engineer. 

    Held

    The Court denied Defendant’s motion to exclude Plaintiffs’ expert Neil B. Hall.

    Key Takeaway

    True, the common juror is capable of observing a photograph of a speed bump and making their own determination about its relative safety. But Hall’s testimony can add additional beneficial layers and, importantly, “bring to the jury more than the lawyers can offer in argument.” Hall relied on his extensive experience in opining on whether Costco should have taken additional safety measures with respect to its speed bumps.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Query V. Costco Wholesale Corporation
    Docket Number: 2:24cv2082
    Court Name: United States District Court, Louisiana Eastern
    Order Date: May 04, 2026
  • Security Expert Witness’ Opinions Admitted because of its Strong Factual Basis

    Security Expert Witness’ Opinions Admitted because of its Strong Factual Basis

    A district judge in New Jersey admitted the testimony of the security expert despite the opposing party contending that it was based on his own personal, subjective beliefs.

    The present case arises out of Plaintiff, Ebony Thames’ fall from the roof of Bally’s Wild West Casino in Atlantic City, New Jersey. On April 6, 2019, Plaintiff, a patron at Defendants’ property, was served alcohol by Bally’s employees. Later that evening, Plaintiff was in a hotel room at the property when a security officer responded to a noise complaint. Upon arrival, the security officer encountered Plaintiff, who ran off down the hallway towards the fire tower. Plaintiff exited an unalarmed door onto the roof of the building then diverted her path from the walkway along the fire escape route where she fell from the third-floor roof of the adjoining building while attempting to climb down the facade. In order to reach the Bally’s ledge where Plaintiff started to climb down the building, Plaintiff needed to traverse barriers that included HVAC piping, two five foot walls, and one nine-foot wall.

    After Plaintiff fell several stories to the boardwalk below, she filed this lawsuit on account of severe and permanent injuries sustained as a result.

    Defendants filed a motion to bar the opinion and findings of Plaintiff’s security expert witness, Russell Kolins under Federal Rules of Evidence 702 and 703.

    Security Expert Witness

    Russell Kolins leads the Kolins Security Group, a division of Russell Kolins Associates. He holds a Bachelor of Science Degree in Security Management and specialized in the defense industry during the first two decades of his practice, undergoing extensive training and education in the fields of Risk Management, Risk Assessments, Premises Liability, Security Inspections, and Civil Liability.

    Russell Kolins’ expertise is well-earned. He is a certified trainer in the two nationally accepted responsible alcohol management programs. Russell has been a consultant to some of the largest Nightclub entertainment venues as well as country clubs, resorts and hotel and motel businesses. His skills extend to Facility Physical Security Design and he is a CPTED Practitioner.

    Get in-depth insights into Russell Collin’s expert witness experience by requesting his Expert Witness Profile today

    Discussion by the Court

    Defendants argued that Russell Kolins’ conclusions constituted net opinion based on his subjective opinions regarding the facts of the case. Also, they added that Kolins’ opinions improperly extrapolated from the facts of a prior matter involving the same Defendant, Bally’s, and that his opinions consisted of legal conclusions. In his report, Kolins asserted that Bally’s was obligated to protect people on their property and failed to place a reasonable barrier to detect, delay and ultimately respond to people who were in this unsafe area.

    Moreover, Defendants argued that Kolins applied an unreasonably high standard created using his own personal, subjective beliefs to reach his conclusions and created a unreasonable duty of care.

    According to the Court, Kolins’ response to a question posing a hypothetical scenario was distinct from his opinion that Defendants had an obligation to protect Plaintiff under the specific circumstances of this case. As Kolins set forth in his Report, the materials he relied on in forming this opinion included information that “Defendant had a history of people being up on and falling off the roof” and “people being on the roof was so prevalent that security was responsible for patrolling this area for customers.” Together, the Court held that this information reasonably explained the factual basis underlying Kolins’ opinion.

    The Defendant had previously filed a motion to preclude Plaintiff’s expert report of Russell Kolins arguing that it was nearly two (2) months late in violation of this Court’s Orders and all applicable rules in New Jersey. The Court denied the Defendants’ motion to preclude the untimely expert report submitted by Kolins.

    Held

    The Court denied the Defendants’ motion to exclude to the opinion of security expert witness, Russell Kolins.

    Defendants also filed a motion for summary judgment combined with this motion to bar Kolins’ testimony. Defendants argued that Plaintiff failed to retain an expert in order establish the alleged negligence responsible for the Plaintiffs’ injuries. Court ruled that the expert testimony of Kolins may be admitted to establish general principles for negligence and Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on that issue.

    Key Takeaway:

    According to Defendants, Kolins drew his conclusions applying an unreasonably high standard created using his own personal, subjective beliefs but the Court found out that Kolins’ conclusions were actually supported by reliable information regarding the Defendants’ security practices and previous incidents.

    Case Details:

      Case Caption: Thames v. Bally’s Park Place, LLC
     Docket Number: 1:21cv1876
     Court: United States District Court, New Jersey
     Order Date: June 17, 2024