Court: United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern DivisionJurisdiction: FederalCase Name: Schnur v. Kohl’s Dep’t Stores, Inc.Citation: 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125
In this negligence case, the plaintiff reportedly suffered injuries on the sidewalk outside the defendant’s department store. The plaintiff retained a building code expert witness to prove the defendant failed to comply with building codes. The defendant attempted to exclude the expert witness’s testimony based on the expert’s qualifications.
The court ruled the building code expert witness’s testimony admissible. Despite the expert’s lack of formal qualifications in building code interpretation, the expert witness could speak on building codes in this case.
Facts
The plaintiff allegedly suffered from injuries when they tripped on an uneven sidewalk outside a department store owned by the defendant. The plaintiffs, a husband and wife, lodged a motion for summary judgment on causation and liability. The plaintiff retained a building code expert witness to support their case.
The Plaintiff’s Building Code Expert Witness
The plaintiff retained a building code expert witness to advise on the defendant’s compliance with applicable building codes. The expert’s study concluded that the sidewalk’s deviation was around one inch. The expert witness based the conclusion on measurements and calculations obtained from a photograph. Based on the assumption of a one-inch deviation, the expert opined that the defendant failed to comply with several building code requirements. The defendant insisted the building code expert witness lacked adequate qualifications to testify. They argued that the expert’s opinions lacked reliable methodology backed by sufficient facts and data.
The defendant questioned the expert’s ability to testify as an expert. They disputed both the expert’s assessments: sidewalk height variance and adherence to various building codes.
Discussion
The expert had no specialized experience or schooling in assessing heights based on image study. Although the expert had used this method in his profession since 1977, he never reviewed applicable literature or studied science. The expert witness did not regard himself as an authority in this method. Therefore, the expert was not qualified to testify as to the height of deviation.
However, the building code expert witness was an expert in compliance with building codes. He held a bachelor’s degree in design and was a licensed architect in Illinois and Wisconsin. The building code expert witness had over 30 years of architectural work experience. Although the expert had no formal qualifications in interpreting building codes, the court deemed his architectural knowledge and expertise adequate. The expert’s background qualified him as a building code expert since the case was not too complicated or technological. To be considered an expert for this case, the building code expert witness did not need a specific specialization.
Defendant claimed if the expert’s assertion for the deviation was excluded, the remainder of the testimony was inadmissible. The defendant argued for exclusion of the assertion due to inadequate data or facts. However, the court noted that if the trier of fact determined the deviation to be one inch, then the expert’s report would be relevant. The report would assist in interpreting compliance with building codes. The court further noted it didn’t matter if the expert didn’t check other proof of the deviation. The defendant had the right to submit contradictory evidence, which could affect the weight of the expert’s testimony. The court believed the expert’s job was not to weigh and evaluate facts. The building code expert witness’s job was to testify to the defendant’s compliance with building codes provided some assumption.
The defendant also insisted the expert’s opinions did not apply reliable methodology. However, the court noted the correct approach here was merely to adapt the applicable building codes to the state of the walkway. In addition to adapting to the building codes, the court stated the correct approach was to decide on conformity. The expert identified applicable building codes, drew conclusions on adherence, and offered explanations for his conclusions.
Ruling
The building code expert witness’s evidence on the extent of deviation was deemed inadmissible. The expert was not an expert in photographic research However, he was qualified to examine conformance with building code regulations, and he relied on sufficient data and facts. Therefore, the building code expert witness’s testimony was deemed admissible.
Key Takeaways for Experts
This case demonstrates the importance of specialized experience for expert witnesses. Not every case topic will require an expert to have an educational background. However, in this case, the expert witness’s testimony was partially excluded for lack of professional education in image study and height assessment. The expert witness’s career in architecture allowed him to opine on certain topics but was not sufficient to back his methodology. Expert witnesses should always confirm that they have the appropriate educational credentials necessary to opine on case topics. In some instances, if an expert lacks educational credentials, it may be necessary for two experts to provide testimony.
About the author
Zach Barreto
Zach Barreto is a distinguished professional in the legal industry, currently serving as the Senior Vice President of Research at the Expert Institute. With a deep understanding of a broad range of legal practice areas, Zach's expertise encompasses personal injury, medical malpractice, mass torts, defective products, and many other sectors. His skills are particularly evident in handling complex litigation matters, including high-profile cases like the Opioids litigation, NFL Concussion Litigation, California Wildfires, 3M earplugs, Elmiron, Transvaginal Mesh, NFL Concussion Litigation, Roundup, Camp Lejeune, Hernia Mesh, IVC filters, Paraquat, Paragard, Talcum Powder, Zantac, and many others.
Under his leadership, the Expert Institute’s research team has expanded impressively from a single member to a robust team of 100 professionals over the last decade. This growth reflects his ability to navigate the intricate and demanding landscape of legal research and expert recruitment effectively. Zach has been instrumental in working on nationally significant litigation matters, including cases involving pharmaceuticals, medical devices, toxic chemical exposure, and wrongful death, among others.
At the Expert Institute, Zach is responsible for managing all aspects of the research department and developing strategic institutional relationships. He plays a key role in equipping attorneys for success through expert consulting, case management, strategic research, and expert due diligence provided by the Institute’s cloud-based legal services platform, Expert iQ.
Educationally, Zach holds a Bachelor's degree in Political Science and European History from Vanderbilt University.
