I am familiar with the applicable codes and safety standards that apply to the subject accident scene. The state building code has very reasonable standards for protecting the general public. The subject accident would not have taken place if a safe commercial customer control system would have been in place consisting of narrow poles and floor insertion holes. Such pedestrian control systems are commonly used to control pharmacy window customer traffic and such systems create safe customer spaces and travel paths.
The defendant created two pedestrian barriers — the display and the wide base stanchion system. This created a complex zone of danger. The accident scene video is the most important evidence that I have reviewed in this matter to reach my opinions. The stanchion system was designed to preserve patient confidentiality at the pharmacy counter and to separate patients for privacy reasons. The subject accident was caused by the obstacle present at the pharmacy center coupled with the unreasonably dangerous stanchion system. The plaintiff was directed to this unsafe area by the defendant’s staff.
It would have been more prudent and reasonable to not utilize any stanchion system at all in the area of this accident A system in secure posts was not available, no stanchions should have been utilized.
It is my opinion that the area and location of the subject accident was unreasonably dangerous for the plaintiff to attempt to conduct business at the pharmacy center, and the defendant was negligent for such condition. I have not determined any error or omission on the part of the plaintiff.
The expert was a human factors professor and has conducted research on human walking and falling. He has testified in more than 400 cases.