Court: United States District Court for the Middle District of PennsylvaniaJurisdiction: FederalCase Name: Sheetz v. Wal-Mart Stores, East, L.P.Citation: 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193469
The court agrees with the defendant’s argument. The expert is highly qualified in marketing and merchandising fields. But this doesn’t make him qualified to speak on the shoe rack hazards. Additionally, he only offers retail safety evidence in the form of past court decisions. For this reason, the court partially strikes his testimony.
Facts
The plaintiff tripped on a shoe rack in the defendant’s store. She sustained severe injuries. The plaintiff claimed the defendant was negligent in their shoe rack alignment and placement. The plaintiff hired a retail safety expert witness to support her case.
The Plaintiff’s Retail Safety Expert Witness
The plaintiff’s retail safety expert witness held a B.A. in accounting and an M.A. in business administration. He was a marketing professor at Penn State’s Smeal College of Business. Here, the expert developed and taught courses in retailing, marketing principles, and sales and services marketing. He taught courses to over 50,000 students over 40 years. The expert was a retailing faculty expert who acted as a link between the retail industry and Penn State. Specifically, he received one of two nationwide professorships for higher education retail management by Kohl’s Department Stores. Further, he competed in the J.C. Penney Professor Internship Program. Additionally, Wal-Mart invited the expert to attend both the Annual Shareholder Meeting and the University Conference.
The expert sought to opine on the defendant’s in-store safety standards. Specifically, he examined the configuration and location of the shoe rack. He also assessed the risks inherent in its positioning.
The defendant insisted the expert lacked the qualifications to make an admissible opinion on the safety conditions present in-store. In particular, the defendant objected to the expert’s examination of the shoe department and shoe rack where the plaintiff fell. The defendant agreed that the expert was qualified as a marketing expert. However, they asserted he was not a retail safety expert.
Discussion
The court agreed that the expert had a comprehensive retail marketing history. This was demonstrated by his curriculum vitae and trial testimony. However, the court had difficulty determining whether this applied to the matter at hand. Specifically, the court focused on whether the expert could appropriately assess the safety of the shoe rack’s positioning.
The court asserted that the expert was qualified to testify about issues relating to general merchandising practices and retail environment techniques. These issues included floor and shelving layout, and product displays. This also included the function and arrangement of aisle end caps.
However, the court agreed with the defendant on the shoe rack matter. Here, the court found the expert’s opinions were unreliable. The expert did not describe any concepts or techniques he relied on in drawing his conclusions on the shoe rack. Further, he didn’t give any evidence of how his knowledge and experience provided adequate justification for such conclusions. Instead, the expert relied on two previous state court decisions.
The court was not persuaded that these cases provided an admissible basis for an expert opinion under Rule 703. Moreover, the expert largely parroted the conclusions and observations of a human factors expert witness included in one of the previous decisions.
Ruling
The court granted in part and denied in part the defendant’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s retail safety expert’s testimony.
Key Takeaways for Experts
This case demonstrates the importance of verifying your expertise is a good match for a case. The expert here was clearly qualified in general merchandising topics. However, his lack of expertise regarding the shoe rack’s positioning was clear to the court. Make sure every opinion you offer can be backed with industry-accepted evidence and your own professional knowledge.
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.
