Tag: Slip

  • 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
  • Opinions of Walkway Safety Expert Witness on Hazard and Standard of Care Excluded

    Opinions of Walkway Safety Expert Witness on Hazard and Standard of Care Excluded

    Plaintiff Logan Demboske (“Demboske”) alleged in this premises liability action that he slipped and fell on or about January 30, 2023, on “a transitory foreign substance.”

    Demboske has retained David Collette as a walkway expert. In Collette’s expert report, he contended that Demboske slipped and fell on a liquid contaminant on a vinyl floor, coated with floor finish, and was injured on January 30, 2023. Collette opined that the walkway where Demboske slipped and fell was a dangerous condition caused by Greer’s unreasonable standard of care that created a pedestrian slip hazard.

    Autry Greer & Sons, Inc., filed a motion to exclude Collette’s opinions on several grounds. First, Greer sought to have the opinions excluded as untimely. Second, Greer argued Collette’s opinions failed to meet the admissibility standards set forth in Federal Rule of Evidence 702.

    Walkway Safety Expert Witness

    David Collette has a degree in Mechanical Engineering and is a qualified Walkway Auditor. He has over 18 years of experience in developing, commercializing, analyzing, and troubleshooting walkway solutions including chemistry, tools, mats (walk-off, bath), cleaning processes, coatings, treatments, and flooring material selection. Collette is a Walkway Audit Certificate Holder and has a Certificate in Assessing Walkway Safety from the University of Northern Texas.

    Fortify your strategy by reviewing a Challenge Study detailing grounds for excluding David Collette’s expert testimony. 

    Discussion by the Court

    Collette’s Untimely Report

    The Court found Collette’s opinions should be excluded under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1) because they are incomplete and, thus, untimely. Collette has not provided his entire case list, his case notes, or his billing statements as per the requirements of Rule 26. Despite having two (2) additional months to produce Collette’s written report, the Court found no basis for Demboske’s failure to produce Collette’s full case list, case notes, or invoices.

    Federal Rule of 702

    As stated above, Collette sought to offer two opinions in this case, a hazard opinion and a breach of the standard of care opinion.

    Hazard Opinion

    Collette was questioned about his opinion regarding the condition of the walkway at length during his deposition. Repeatedly, Collette admitted that his opinion boils down to this – “water on floor finish is a hazard.” According to Collette, his hazard opinion is not based on Greer selecting the wrong flooring or that the floor was unsafe for any reason. Indeed, the flooring in Greer’s store is a vinyl composition tile (“VCT”) floor – the same type of floor found in large, big-box stores, such as Walmart and Target. Collette’s testimony is simply that standing water makes the finished floor slippery.

    The Court held that Collette’s opinion that the floor was a hazard when slippery is a matter “in the realm of common sense” making his opinion a “superfluous” one which provides “no benefit to the trier of fact.”

    Also, Demboske’s counsel expressly represented to the Court that she does not seek to have that opinion admitted at trial or for Collette to testify about that opinion. For sake of completeness, the Court finds that even without counsel’s concession, the hazard opinion would be excluded as unhelpful.

    Greer also argued Collette’s hazard opinion is unreliable because Collette did not test the flooring until February 5, 2024, more than one year after Demboske’s fall which is why Collette did not know whether the floor finish was the same as at the time of the accident. Because Collette lacks sufficient information about the condition of the floor at the time of the accident, his hazard opinion is also not reliable.

    Opinion Regarding Greer’s Breach of the Standard of Care

    The second opinion Collette sought to offer is that the hazard condition referenced in his first opinion – that is, that the finished floor was slippery when wet – was caused by Greer’s breach of the standard of care. According to Collette, Greer breached the standard of care by failing to have defined and published procedures, policies, and training programs on slip and fall hazard identification, sweeps, and cleaning. Greer argued this opinion should be excluded under Rule 702 because Collette relies on facts that are not in the record and also, the opinion goes to an ultimate legal issue, which is not within the province of an expert opinion.

    The Court held that while Collette may be able to provide testimony regarding industry standards for maintaining, cleaning, and inspecting floors, he cannot opine that Greer breached the standard of care or that such breach caused the hazard condition or injuries. Such testimony is not admissible because
    it would usurp the District Court’s pivotal role in explaining the law to the jury.

    Held

    The Court granted Greer’s motion to strike and to exclude David Collette as an expert witness.

    Key Takeaways:

    • For sake of completeness, the Court found that even without counsel’s concession, Collette’s hazard opinion would be excluded as unhelpful. As stated above, in assessing helpfulness, “expert testimony is only admissible if it concerns matters that are beyond the understanding of the average layperson and offers something more than what lawyers can argue in closing arguments.”
    • Collette’s breach of the standard of care opinion was excluded because it concerned the ultimate issue for the jury to decide.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Demboske V. Autry Greer & Sons Inc
    Docket Number: 3:23cv24717
    Court: United States District Court, Florida Northern
    Order Date: July 15, 2024