State Farm Fire and Casualty Company v. Hartman et al

Filing 180

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 162 Motion to Exclude or Limit the Testimony of Expert Richard D. Blomberg ; denying 164 Motion for Summary Judgment and granting in part and denying in part 166 Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony. Signed by District Judge Daniel D. Crabtree on 07/08/2014. (mig)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
STATE FARM FIRE AND
CASUALTY COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 12-2456-DDC-KGG
JAMIE N. BELL,
Defendant, Cross-Claimant/
Third-Party Plaintiff,
and
C.M., a minor, by and through her
natural guardian and next friend,
BRANLYN FINNELL, DALLAS N.
HARTMAN, CHARLES C. CONNER, III,
JARED M. WILKINSON and THE
PANTRY, INC.,
Defendants/Cross-Claim
Defendants,
and
KENNETH M. KEEN,
Third-Party Defendant.
______________________________________
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
State Farm Fire and Casualty Company brought suit against Dallas N. Hartman, Charles
C. Conner, III, Branlyn Finnell as natural guardian and next friend of minor C. M., Jamie N.
Bell, Jared M. Wilkinson, and The Pantry, Inc. seeking a declaratory judgment that it owed no
coverage arising out of an accident and no duty to defend Kenneth Keen, its insured. State Farm

1

now has resolved its claims against all defendants.1 In her responsive pleading, however, Bell
brought cross-claims against her co-defendants and a third-party action against Keen. On June 5,
2013, Bell stipulated to the dismissal of the third-party defendant Keen and each of the other codefendants except The Pantry Inc. (Doc. 111.) Therefore, cross-claim plaintiff Bell and crossclaim defendant The Pantry, Inc. are the only remaining parties in this action. Hereafter, for
simplicity, the Court will refer to cross-claim plaintiff Bell as “plaintiff” and cross-claim
defendant The Pantry, Inc. as “defendant.”
This lawsuit arises from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on September 18, 2011, in
Gardner, Kansas. C.M., a minor, who was not licensed and driving illegally, drove a Mercedes
SUV over the curb and onto the sidewalk in front of a convenience store owned and operated by
defendant. The vehicle struck plaintiff, who was standing on the sidewalk, and pinned her
against the building. As a result, plaintiff sustained personal injuries including a crushed pelvis,

State Farm and Bell stipulated to dismissal of State Farm’s claims against Bell.
Stipulation of Dismissal (Doc. 111) filed June 5, 2013.
1

State Farm applied for and obtained entries of default against Hartman, Conner, Finnell
as natural guardian and next friend of C. M., and Wilkinson. See State Farm’s Appl. for Clerk’s
Entry of Default as to Defs. Dallas N. Hartman, Charles C. Connor (sic), III, C. M., A Minor,
and Jared M. Wilkinson (Doc. 16) filed August 28, 2012; Entry Of Default (Docs. 17, 18, 19, 20)
filed August 28, 2012. State Farm later sought default judgment against Hartman, Conner and
Wilkinson, see Mots. for Default J. (Docs. 129, 130) filed August 13 and August 14, 2013, and
sought summary judgment against C. M., see State Farm’s Mot. for Summ. J. as to C. M., a
Minor, and The Pantry, Inc. (Doc. 132) filed August 21, 2013. Judge Vratil, who previously was
assigned to this case, granted State Farm’s Motions for Default Judgment against Hartman,
Conner, and Wilkinson (Docs. 152, 153), and granted State Farm’s Motion for Summary
Judgment against C.M. (Doc. 155).
Finally, State Farm and The Pantry, Inc. stipulated to dismissal of State Farm’s claims
against The Pantry. See Stipulation of Dismissal (Doc. 139) filed Sept. 11, 2013.
2

broken knees, and multiple cuts and bruises. In this diversity action,2 plaintiff brings a
negligence claim under Kansas law against defendant. Plaintiff alleges that defendant breached
its duty of care by failing to keep plaintiff reasonably safe under the circumstances because
defendant failed to install parking bollards3 or wheel stops or take other precautions to protect
the storefront or pedestrians standing on the sidewalk between the storefront and the head-in
parking spaces. Plaintiff further alleges that a dangerous condition existed on defendant’s
property because it lacked bollards or other barriers in the parking lot protecting the pedestrian
walkway and storefront from vehicular damage. Plaintiff contends that defendant had
knowledge and notice of the dangerousness of the condition and that plaintiff’s injuries were
foreseeable.
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude or Limit the
Testimony of Expert Richard D. Blomberg (Doc. 162), defendant’s Motion to Exclude Expert
Testimony (Doc. 166), and defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 164). For the
reasons explained below, the Court grants in part and denies in part plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude
or Limit the Testimony of Expert Richard D. Blomberg, grants in part and denies in part

2

The Court recognizes that defendant disputes that the Court has subject matter
jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims. See Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss Jamie Bell’s Cross-Cls. and
Third-Party Pet. (Doc. 41); see also Pretrial Order (Doc. 159). Defendant contends that the
Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction in this case because complete diversity did not
exist between plaintiff and all of the cross-claim defendants, and defendant further asserts that
the Court should have declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims
against defendant. Id. On November 18, 2013, Judge Vratil overruled defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and also found no compelling reason to decline to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction. (Doc. 154.) Consequently, the Court has concluded that it
has subject matter jurisdiction over this action.
3

A bollard is a vertical pipe or tube that is usually made of steel and installed in a
sequence to provide a barrier between vehicles and a building or vehicles and a sidewalk.
3

defendant’s Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony (Doc. 166), and denies defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment.
I.

Motions to Exclude Expert Testimony
A. Legal Standard

The Court has a “gatekeeping obligation” to determine the admissibility of expert
testimony. Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 147 (1999) (citing Daubert v. Merrell
Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 589 (1993)). In performing this gatekeeping role, the Court has
broad discretion when deciding whether to admit expert testimony. Kieffer v. Weston Land, Inc.,
90 F.3d 1496, 1498 (10th Cir. 1996) (quoting Orth v. Emerson Elec. Co., 980 F.2d 632, 637
(10th Cir. 1992)). The admissibility of expert testimony is governed by Federal Rule of
Evidence 702, which provides:
A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training,
or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if:
(a)
the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge
will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to
determine a fact in issue;
(b)
the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
(c)
the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and
(d)
the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the
facts of the case.
Fed. R. Evid. 702.
This Court must apply a two-part test to determine admissibility. Conroy v. Vilsack, 707
F.3d 1163, 1168 (10th Cir. 2013). First, the Court must determine “whether the expert is
qualified ‘by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education’ to render an opinion.” United
States v. Nacchio, 555 F.3d 1234, 1241 (10th Cir. 2009) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 702). Second,
the Court “‘must satisfy itself that the proposed expert testimony is both reliable and relevant, in
that it will assist the trier of fact, before permitting a jury to assess such testimony.’” Id.

4

(quoting United States v. Rodriguez–Felix, 450 F.3d 1117, 1122 (10th Cir. 2006)) (further
citations omitted).
To qualify as an expert, the witness must possess “such skill, experience or knowledge in
that particular field as to make it appear that his opinion would rest on substantial foundation and
would tend to aid the trier of fact in his search for truth.” LifeWise Master Funding v. Telebank,
374 F.3d 917, 928 (10th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation omitted). To determine whether the
expert’s testimony is reliable, the Court must assess “whether the reasoning or methodology
underlying the testimony is scientifically valid and . . . whether that reasoning or methodology
properly can be applied to the facts in issue.” Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592–93. The Supreme Court
set forth in Daubert a non-exhaustive list of four factors that trial courts may consider when
determining the reliability of the proffered expert testimony under Fed. R. Evid. 702: (1)
whether the theory used can be and has been tested; (2) whether it has been subjected to peer
review and publication; (3) the known or potential rate of error; and (4) general acceptance in the
scientific community. Id. at 593–94. The Supreme Court has emphasized, however, that these
four factors are not a “definitive checklist or test” and that a court’s gatekeeping inquiry into
reliability must be “tied to the facts of a particular case.” Kumho Tire, 526 U.S. at 150. In some
cases, “the relevant reliability concerns may focus upon personal knowledge or experience,”
rather than the Daubert factors and scientific foundation. Id.
“The proponent of expert testimony bears the burden of showing that the testimony is
admissible.” Conroy, 707 F.3d at 1168 (citing Nacchio, 555 F.3d at 1241). “[R]ejection of
expert testimony is the exception rather than the rule.” Fed. R. Evid. 702 advisory committee
notes. While Daubert requires the Court to act as a gatekeeper for the admission of expert
testimony, “[v]igorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful

5

instruction on the burden of proof” remain “the traditional and appropriate means of attacking
shaky but admissible evidence.” Daubert, 509 U.S. at 596 (citation omitted).
The Court has discretion to determine how to perform its gatekeeping function under
Daubert. Goebel v. Denver & Rio Grande W. R.R., 215 F.3d 1083, 1087 (10th Cir. 2000). “The
most common method for fulfilling this function is a Daubert hearing, although such a process is
not specifically mandated.” Id. (citations omitted). In this case, the parties do not request a
hearing. The Court has carefully reviewed the exhibits filed with the motions and believes this
review is sufficient to render a decision without conducting a hearing.
B. Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude or Limit the Testimony of Expert Richard
Blomberg (Doc. 162)
Plaintiff seeks to exclude or limit the expert opinion testimony of Richard D. Blomberg,
an engineer designated by defendant as an expert witness. As pertinent here, one may
summarize Blomberg’s opinions as follows.
Blomberg is President of Dunlap and Associates, Inc., a research firm. In this position,
he has directed or been involved in the application of human engineering and systems analytic
principles to highway safety, product safety, aircraft design and certification, and the design and
evaluation of human-computer interfaces. His work includes the study of pedestrian safety
problems and the development of countermeasures to them. Blomberg is a member of the
Transportation Research Board (“TRB”), an Emeritus (Lifetime) member of TRB’s Pedestrian
Committee, a former member of its Committee on Alcohol, Other Drugs, and Transportation,
and a member of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Society of Automotive Engineers,
the Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences, the Association for
Consumer Research, and the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Mr. Blomberg
holds B.S. and M.S. degrees in Industrial and Management Engineering from Columbia
6

University. Blomberg reviewed various materials about the accident, as described in his expert
report, and on May 21, 2013, he conducted an on-site examination of the accident scene and
visited 21 other convenience stores located in the greater Kansas City area.
Based on his examination, Blomberg concludes that the motor vehicle accident occurred
because of the error committed by C.M. (i.e., mistakenly pressing the accelerator instead of the
brake) and that this error was independent of the design of the convenience store’s property. He
opines that the design of the property was fully consistent with the prevailing practices of the
convenience store industry and that it was neither defective nor unreasonably unsafe. Blomberg
concludes that an alternate design of the property, such as one using bollards, likely would have
changed the dynamics of the accident, but he also opines that there are significant, inherent risks
in using bollards or other barriers and in designing parking lots without head-in parking.
Because of these risks, Blomberg opines that bollards are not a preferable choice for the design
of the convenience store property at issue in this case.
Plaintiff contests Blomberg’s qualifications to testify on the specific issues in this case, as
well as the relevance and reliability of his opinions. The Court first addresses Blomberg’s
qualifications and then assesses the reliability and relevance of his opinions.
1. Qualifications
Plaintiff argues that Blomberg’s expert testimony should be excluded because he has no
experience or expertise to opine on the dangerousness of the convenience store parking lot or
whether bollards or other barriers should have been installed. Blomberg is an engineer with 45
years of experience in safety research and approximately 41 years of experience in pedestrian
safety research. For almost 20 years, Blomberg served as the safety consultant to the East
Ramapo Central School District in East Ramapo, New York. In that position, he consulted with

7

the school district on the design of the parking lots for the approximately 200 schools in that
district. These parking lots included head-in or diagonal parking. Blomberg also testified that he
performed this same type of consulting work for several other school districts in the same
geographic area. Blomberg also has directed research studies on the design of shopping center
parking lots and has created model parking lot designs. He has written research reports about
parking lot designs for commercial stores, and several of these reports involved preventing
pedestrian accidents. His research also includes the evaluation of specific parking lot designs
and the configuration of parking lots.
Plaintiff attacks Blomberg’s qualifications by asserting that he has never been hired to
design or consulted to design a parking lot for a commercial establishment (including a
convenience store, as is involved in this case), he has not published any articles about parking lot
design, and he has never provided expert opinion or testimony in a case involving convenience
store parking lots with head-in parking (or the design or safety of such a parking lot). Although
plaintiff criticizes Blomberg’s lack of specific knowledge about convenience store parking lot
designs, these arguments go to the weight and not the admissibility of Blomberg’s testimony.
See Utility Trailer Sales of Kansas City, Inc. v. MAC Trailer Mfg., Inc., 267 F.R.D. 368, 371 (D.
Kan. 2010) (refusing to exclude an expert witness’s testimony based on his lack of specific
experience in the trailer industry; rather, this was a subject “defendants may explore . . . on cross
examination.”)
Plaintiff also takes issue with Blomberg’s observations of 21 other convenience stores
that he visited in the Kansas City area on his way to the airport after inspecting the site of the
accident in Gardner, Kansas. Plaintiff argues that none of these other stores were configured in
the same way as the convenience store at issue, which had gas pump islands but no gas pumps.

8

Plaintiff also criticizes Blomberg for failing to gather historical information about other vehicle
incursion accidents at these convenience stores. The Court determines that Blomberg’s
inspection of the 21 other convenience stores does not render him unqualified to testify as an
expert in this case. Rather, plaintiff’s criticisms about Blomberg’s inspection of these 21
convenience stores go to the weight of the evidence, and plaintiff may cross-examine Blomberg
on those topics.
Based on his experience described above, the Court concludes that Blomberg is qualified
to testify on the matters set forth in his expert report. “Experience alone—or experience
combined with other knowledge, skill, training, or education—may provide a sufficient
foundation for expert testimony.” Utility Trailer Sales of Kansas City, Inc., 267 F.R.D. at 370
(citing Fed. R. Evid. 702 advisory committee notes). However, a witness “relying solely or
primarily on experience” must “explain how the experience leads to the conclusion reached.”
Fed. R. Evid. 702 advisory committee notes; see also United States v. Fredette, 315 F.3d 1235,
1240 (10th Cir. 2003). The Court has reviewed Blomberg’s expert report and the transcript of
his deposition where he explained that he bases his opinions on his training and experience as an
engineer and researcher. The Court is satisfied that Blomberg is qualified to testify about the
opinions in his expert report.
2. Reliability
Plaintiff next contends that Blomberg’s opinions are not based upon reliable facts. In
formulating his opinions, Blomberg reviewed the Johnson County, Kansas zoning ordinances
and a PowerPoint presentation he found on the internet. With respect to the Johnson County,
Kansas zoning ordinances, Blomberg admits that he is not a legal expert and he does not know if
these zoning requirements even apply to the convenience store at issue. Blomberg testified that

9

the convenience store at issue is located within the city limits of Gardner, Kansas, but the
Johnson County, Kansas zoning ordinances apply only to unincorporated areas of the County
which no city has annexed.4 Therefore, the Court concludes that Blomberg’s reliance on these
zoning ordinances is inappropriate here. As Daubert cautioned, an expert must base his or her
opinion on “reasoning or methodology [that] properly can be applied to the [actual] facts in
issue.” Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592–93. Here, the County’s zoning ordinance cannot be applied to
this case’s facts because it does not apply to the incorporated location where the accident
occurred. Therefore, to the extent Blomberg relied on the Johnson County, Kansas zoning
ordinances in formulating his opinions, the Court excludes those opinions because they are based
on unreliable facts.
Turning next to Blomberg’s reliance on the PowerPoint presentation that he located on
the internet, Blomberg testified that he found this document on the National Association of
Convenience Stores (“NACS”) website. Blomberg believes that it provides an example of what
the convenience store industry considers as an acceptable model store. Plaintiff challenges
Blomberg’s characterization of this document as showing what is acceptable in the industry
because the PowerPoint presentation itself contains a disclaimer that the opinions expressed in it
do not necessarily state or reflect those of the NACS. Plaintiff further argues that Blomberg’s
reliance on this document is improper because he does not know anything about the authors’
knowledge, training, experience, or expertise in the convenience store parking lot industry, he
did not attend the conference where the presentation was made, and the document does not
address safety measures in convenience store parking lots. The Court agrees with plaintiff that
4

See Johnson County, Kan., Zoning and Subdivisions Regulations art. 1, § 3 (July 1997).
(Doc. 174-1.) The Court takes judicial notice of the regulations. See, e.g., Jones v. Wildgen, 320
F. Supp. 2d 1116, 1120 (D. Kan. 2004) (taking judicial notice of portions of the City Code in an
action challenging the constitutionality of municipal ordinances).
10

the PowerPoint presentation is not a reliable indicator of what the convenience industry
considers as an acceptable model of store, especially because it contains an express disclaimer
that it does not state or reflect the views of the NACS. Moreover, Blomberg is unable to provide
any background information about the authors of the presentation to show that they are a reliable
source for what is acceptable in the industry. Accordingly, the Court excludes Blomberg’s
opinions to the extent they are based on the PowerPoint presentation.
Last, plaintiff contends that Blomberg ignored facts that were unfavorable to defendant in
reaching his conclusions, and by doing so, made his opinions unreliable. Specifically, plaintiff
complains that Blomberg failed to consider other vehicle incursion incidents at defendant’s
stores across the country, the prior vehicle incursion accident that occurred in 2009 at the
convenience store at issue, and defendant’s installation of bollards at newly constructed or
remodeled stores. The Court determines that Blomberg’s failure to consider facts that disfavor
defendant does not render his opinions so unreliable, however, that the jury should not hear
them. As our Court has explained before, an expert’s decision not to consider certain facts in
formulating his opinions is a matter for cross-examination, and not exclusion, because that
decision goes to the weight of the testimony, not its admissibility. See In re Urethane Antitrust
Litig., MDL No. 1616, No. 04-1616-JWL, 2012 WL 6681783, at *3 (D. Kan. Dec. 21, 2012)
(“The extent to which [the expert witness] considered the entirety of the evidence in this case is a
matter for cross-examination.”) The Court declines to exclude Blomberg’s opinions on this
basis.
3. Relevance
Finally, plaintiff argues that Blomberg’s proffered testimony is not relevant to the issues
in this case. Plaintiff moves for the exclusion of seven specific opinions that are asserted by

11

Blomberg either in his expert report or deposition.5 The Court addresses each of these proffered
opinions in turn below.
a. Opinion About the Nature of the Driver
Blomberg opines that the “root cause” of the accident was human error. He describes
C.M. as an “unlicensed and totally inexperienced 14 year old” driver, who was not experienced
with driving in general or the Mercedes SUV that she was driving at the time of the accident. He
notes that C.M. admitted that she pressed the accelerator instead of the brake, and he opines that
C.M.’s error caused the accident. Specifically, he states in his expert report that the pedal error
committed by C.M. made an accident “inevitable.” Blomberg also testified in his deposition that
if C.M. had been a more experienced driver, the likelihood of committing the pedal error would
have been lower.
Plaintiff’s argument misstates Blomberg’s opinion. Plaintiff claims that his opinion “that
the accident was inevitable due to the nature of the driver is not based upon facts, scientific
studies or any relevant experience, education or training.” Pl’s. Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Limit
or Exclude the Test. of Expert Richard D. Blomberg (Doc. 163 at 13). But Blomberg’s opinion
is not phrased that way in his report. Rather, Blomberg states that C.M.’s pedal error (a fact that
is not disputed) made an accident inevitable.
Plaintiff also argues that Blomberg’s opinion that the driver was untrained,
inexperienced, and immature is speculative. The Court disagrees. Blomberg reviewed C.M.’s
deposition in formulating his expert opinion. C.M. testified that she was 14 years old on the date
of the accident and that she did not have a driver’s license at that time. She also testified that
5

Although plaintiff argues in the introduction to this section of her motion that certain
proffered testimony is not relevant to the issues in the case, this portion of her motion also
attacks the reliability of certain, specific opinions. The reliability of these certain opinions is
also addressed below, where applicable.
12

prior to the accident, she had only driven about two or three times on back roads for about ten or
fifteen miles each time. C.M. also admitted that she had never driven the Mercedes SUV before
the accident. Blomberg’s opinion that the driver was untrained and inexperienced is supported
by sufficient facts to satisfy the relevance threshold of the analysis.
Plaintiff also contends that Blomberg’s opinion that there was a higher risk of pedal error
because C.M. was untrained and inexperienced is not relevant to the issues in this case.6
Blomberg admits that unintended acceleration occurs in drivers of all ages, that pedal error is a
“known phenomenon” in the traffic safety industry, and that the accident in this case would not
have been prevented if C.M. had a learner’s permit authorizing her to drive. The Court finds that
these arguments are more appropriate for cross-examination rather than determining the
admissibility of Blomberg’s testimony. Blomberg’s opinion about the characteristics of the
driver is relevant, and the Court declines to exclude this expert testimony.
b. Opinion that the Parking Lot Design Meets Regulations
Plaintiff moves to exclude Blomberg’s opinion that the convenience store parking lot at
issue complies with the Johnson County, Kansas zoning ordinances. As explained above, these
ordinances do not apply to a convenience store located within the city limits of Gardner, Kansas,
which is where defendant’s store is located. Therefore, Blomberg’s opinion that the parking lot
complies with the Johnson County, Kansas zoning ordinances is not relevant to the issues in this
case, and the Court excludes this opinion.

In the heading of its argument, plaintiff contends that Blomberg’s opinion is not based on
any relevant experience, education or training, but plaintiff does not expand on this argument in
the motion. As defendant points out, Blomberg has worked on numerous studies involving
pedestrian safety and driver behavior. He also has published reports on driver education,
including a report that recommended a new system of driver education, and surveyed the
licensing practices in the 50 states. The Court is satisfied that Blomberg possesses sufficient
relevant experience to express this expert opinion.
6

13

c. Opinion that the Use of Head-In Parking Without Bollards
is Standard in the Convenience Store Industry, that the
Design of the Parking Lot at Issue is not Unreasonably
Dangerous, and Any Other Design Would Be Significantly
More Dangerous
Blomberg renders three opinions about the convenience store parking lot at issue in this
case. He opines that: (1) the use of head-in parking without bollards or other protective barriers
is standard in the convenience store industry; (2) the parking lot design at the convenience store
at issue in this case, which consisted of head-in parking without bollards or other protective
barriers, is neither defective nor unreasonably dangerous; and (3) any other parking lot designs
are more dangerous.
Plaintiff seeks to exclude all three opinions by arguing that Blomberg lacks knowledge of
the industry standard for convenience stores, and therefore his opinion is not reliable. Indeed,
Blomberg testified that he did not find any document in his research that identified an industry
standard for the use of bollards. Blomberg instead bases his opinion on his personal observations
of the 21 conveniences stores he visited in the Kansas City area and the PowerPoint presentation
that he downloaded from the NACS website. The Court agrees with plaintiff that Blomberg’s
opinion about what is “standard in the convenience store industry” is not reliable. As it has
already explained above, the Court excludes Blomberg’s opinions that are based on the
PowerPoint presentation because it is unreliable. The Court further finds that Blomberg’s visits
to 21 conveniences stores in the Kansas City area do not provide a sufficiently reliable basis for
him to render an opinion on the “standard in the industry” for convenience stores. Therefore, the
Court excludes Blomberg’s opinion that the use of head-in parking without bollards or other
protective barriers is standard in the convenience store industry.

14

The Court declines to exclude the remaining two opinions, however. The Court finds that
Blomberg’s training and experience as an engineer and a researcher provide him a reliable basis
to opine about parking lot designs. The Court therefore rejects plaintiff’s challenges to
Blomberg’s opinion that the parking lot design at the convenience store at issue in this case,
which consisted of head-in parking without bollards or other protective barriers, is neither
defective nor unreasonably dangerous and his opinion that any other parking lot designs are more
dangerous.
d. Opinion that the Installation of Bollards Would Not Have
Prevented the Accident, but Would Have Changed the
Nature, Severity, and/or the Victim of the Accident
Blomberg also opines that the installation of bollards at the subject convenience store
would not have prevented an accident, but it would have changed the nature, severity, and/or the
victim of the accident. He states in his expert report that, in this case, the presence of bollards
“might” have prevented the Mercedes SUV from injuring plaintiff. However, in that scenario,
the Mercedes SUV would have hit a bollard which may have resulted in injuries to the vehicle’s
occupants, damage to the vehicle, “possible” damage to the vehicle(s) parked adjacent to the
Mercedes SUV, and “possible” injuries of a different nature to plaintiff and other pedestrians.
Plaintiff argues that this opinion is based on speculation and therefore should be
excluded. The Court disagrees. Although expert opinions “‘must be based on facts which
enable [the expert] to express a reasonably accurate conclusion as opposed to conjecture or
speculation, . . . absolute certainty is not required.’” Goebel v. Denver & Rio Grande W. R.R.,
346 F.3d 987, 991 (10th Cir. 2003) (quoting Gomez v. Martin Marietta Corp., 50 F.3d 1511,
1519 (10th Cir. 1995)). The proponent of expert testimony is not required to prove that the
expert is “undisputably correct.” Id. (citing Mitchell v. Gencorp Inc., 165 F.3d 778, 781 (10th

15

Cir. 1999)). Rather, the proponent “must show that the method employed by the expert in
reaching the conclusion is scientifically sound and that the opinion is based on facts that satisfy
Rule 702’s reliability requirements.” Id. (citing Mitchell, 165 F.3d at 781). Here, the Court
concludes that Blomberg’s experience with safety and pedestrian research provides a sufficiently
reliable basis for the jury to hear his opinion that installing bollards would have changed the
nature of the accident. Plaintiff’s arguments that Blomberg ignored certain facts when
formulating this opinion or that he is unable to state with absolute certainty the outcome of the
accident had bollards been installed are proper subjects for cross-examination. The Court
declines to exclude this expert opinion.
e. Opinion that Defendant is a Safety Conscious Company
Blomberg testified in his deposition that defendant is a safety conscious company.
Plaintiff argues that this opinion is unreliable because Blomberg admits that he has not spoken
with anyone at defendant’s company and the only basis for his opinion is what he read in
defendant’s corporate representative’s deposition. He also admits that he did not investigate
whether defendant considered the safety of the design of the parking lot or pedestrian walkway at
the convenience store at issue. Defendant did not address this specific opinion in its Opposition
to plaintiff’s motion. The Court agrees with plaintiff. This particular opinion is not reliable or
relevant to the issues in this case, and therefore, the Court excludes Blomberg’s opinion that
defendant is a safety conscious company.
4. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the Court grants in part and denies in part plaintiff’s
Motion to Exclude or Limit the Testimony of Expert Richard D. Blomberg. The Court
determines that Blomberg is qualified to testify as an expert in this case. The Court also finds

16

certain of his opinions are reliable and relevant as described above, and therefore those opinions
are admissible as expert testimony. The Court, however, excludes Blomberg’s opinions that are
based on the Johnson County, Kansas zoning ordinances and on the PowerPoint presentation that
he located on the NACS website because these materials are not reliable or relevant sources of
information to the issues in this case. The Court also excludes Blomberg’s opinions that (1) the
convenience store parking lot at issue complies with the Johnson County, Kansas zoning
ordinances, (2) the use of head-in parking without bollards or other protective barriers is standard
in the convenience store industry, and (3) defendant is a safety conscious company because these
opinions are neither reliable nor relevant to the issues in the case.
C. Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony (Doc. 166)
Defendant seeks to exclude or limit the expert opinion testimony of four individuals
designated by plaintiff as expert witnesses: (1) Robert Reiter, an expert in the design and use of
safety devices in the convenience store industry; (2) Warren Vander Helm, an expert in parking
design and planning; (3) Anthony Gamboa, PhD, MBA, a vocational economic analyst; and (4)
Laura Lampton, a registered nurse and life care plan specialist. The Court addresses the opinion
testimony of each one of plaintiff’s proffered expert witnesses in turn below.
1. Robert Reiter
Plaintiff has designated Robert Reiter to offer expert opinion testimony about: (1) the
dangerousness of the convenience store at issue; (2) the foreseeability of the accident; and (3) the
cost and feasibility of safety devices to protect customers and to prevent vehicle incursions.
Defendant moves to exclude Reiter’s opinions about the dangerousness of the convenience store
property and the foreseeability of the accident arguing that these opinions are unreliable and not
relevant.

17

a. Qualifications
Defendant does not challenge Reiter’s qualifications to opine about the dangerousness of
the convenience store property or the foreseeability of the accident. The Court notes that, for
more than ten years, Reiter has engaged actively in the research and development of safety
devices, such as bollards, to protect buildings and pedestrians from vehicle incursions. Reiter
has worked with industry groups to set standards for testing and installation of bollards and
barriers for government, public agencies, utilities, private companies, and underwriters and
insurers. Reiter also founded the Storefront Safety Council to bring attention to the problem of
accidental vehicle incursion, promote academic and industry focused research on the scope of the
problem, present best practices and solutions, and to educate the public, industry groups, and
code enforcement entities about emerging crash test standards and potential solutions. Reiter is
qualified to provide expert testimony on the dangerousness of the convenience store property and
the foreseeability of the accident in this case.
b. Reliability
Defendant contests the reliability of Reiter’s opinion that a vehicle incursion accident was
foreseeable. Reiter bases this opinion on calculations about the number of accidental vehicular
incursions that occur each day at convenience stores and the rate with which pedal error causes
such accidents. Reiter states that the frequency of accidental vehicular incursions at convenience
stores and the rate at which pedal error causes such accidents made the accident at issue here
foreseeable to defendant. Defendant contends that these calculations are based upon flawed data
and unsupported assumptions, and therefore are unreliable.

18

i. Opinion that about 20 accidental vehicular
incursions occur every day at convenience stores in
the United States
Reiter opines in his expert report that accidental vehicle incursions occur about 40 to 50
times each day in the United States. Reiter further estimates that convenience stores,
specifically, experience accidental vehicular incursions about 20 times per day. He reaches the
estimate for convenience stores by relying on a study that he conducted with the Texas Traffic
Institute at Texas A&M University in which he analyzed data from two convenience store
chains. In that study, Reiter reviewed data from about 8,000 conveniences stores over a five year
period to conclude that vehicular incursions occur about 20 times per day at convenience stores.
Defendant argues that this sample size is only about five percent of the convenience stores in the
United States and that this “limited data” does not provide a reliable basis for Reiter to opine that
the accident was foreseeable.
The Court disagrees that the sample size of the data renders Reiter’s opinion unreliable.
This opinion is based on Reiter’s own research and study, which, as plaintiff points out, was peer
reviewed by Texas A&M University. Defendant is free to cross-examine Reiter about the
sample size of the data, but the Court declines to find that the opinion is unreliable on this basis.
Further, the Court disagrees with defendant’s reliance on Newell Rubbermaid, Inc. v. Raymond
Corp., 676 F.3d 521 (6th Cir. 2012). In that case, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s
exclusion of an expert’s opinion because of “four red flags” in the methodology: “anecdotal
evidence, improper extrapolation, failure to consider other possible causes, and, significantly, a
lack of testing.” Id. at 528 (emphasis added). Specifically, the court in Newell Rubbermaid
faulted the expert for opining that a latching or spring-loaded rear door was necessary to make a
forklift safe when the expert never actually tested either of the alternative designs and his

19

opinion favoring a rear guard door was contrary to industry standards. Id. at 528–29.
Conversely, in this case, Reiter has sufficient experience in the research and development of
safety devices to protect pedestrians from vehicle incursions, and he relied on sufficient data
when formulating his opinion about the number of vehicle incursions that occur on a daily basis
at convenience stores.
Defendant also argues that Reiter’s opinion did not account for other factors that may
affect a convenience store’s rate of vehicular incursions, including: the number of customers
visiting the store, the age of the customers, the design of the property, or the state where the store
is located. Defendant contends that Reiter’s failure to consider these other factors does not allow
him to draw a correlation between accidental vehicle incursions at other stores with the
convenience store at issue in this case. While Reiter’s failure to consider these other factors may
persuade a jury that his method was not the “superior” method for calculating the rate of
vehicular incursions across the county, the Court does not find that it renders the opinion so
unreliable that the jury should not hear it. See Util. Trailer Sales of Kansas City, Inc., 267
F.R.D. at 371 (stating that while the expert may not have employed the “best” method in making
his calculations, “the standard for admissibility is reliability, not superiority”).
The Court also does not agree with defendant’s reliance on Parker v. Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc., 267 F.R.D. 373 (D. Kan. 2010). In that case, the proposed expert witness opined that
defendant’s mode of operation was negligent based on the number of slip-and-falls that had
occurred at the store in the last two years, but the expert knew none of the details of any of the
accidents, including the condition of the floor, whether defendant was at fault, how many
employees were working, or how many customers were in the store at the time. Id. at 376.
Judge Murguia excluded this opinion as unreliable because the expert witness did not rely on any

20

industry standards in reaching this conclusion, and he did not have any reliable source to
compare the number of slip-and-falls at the store in relation to other stores of a similar size and
customer base. Id. Reiter’s opinion differs from the expert opinion at issue in Parker. In this
case, Reiter used reliable sources in formulating his opinion about the rates of vehicular
incursions. Further, he is not contending that defendant was negligent based simply on the
number of accidents at its store. Rather, Reiter has estimated the number of vehicular incursions
that occur on a daily basis at convenience stores around the country, and from that data, he
opines the vehicle incursion accident in this case was foreseeable to defendant as a convenience
store owner. To the extent defendant criticizes Reiter’s opinion based on his failure to consider
other factors, defendant certainly will have the chance to explore those concerns on crossexamination.
Finally, defendant complains that Reiter provides only an “estimate” that about 20
vehicular incursion accidents occur daily at convenience stores and that he is unable to state with
any certainty the probability of a vehicle incursion at the convenience store at issue. But, as
noted above, the proponent of the testimony need not prove that the expert is “undisputably
correct.” Goebel, 346 F.3d at 991 (citing Mitchell, 165 F.3d at 781). The Court is satisfied that
Reiter’s method in reaching this opinion is scientifically sound and that his opinion is based on
facts that satisfy Rule 702’s reliability requirements. Id. (citing Mitchell, 165 F.3d at 781).
Therefore, Reiter’s opinion that about 20 vehicular incursion accidents occur on a daily basis at
convenience stores is reliable, and he may provide expert testimony about this opinion.
ii. Opinion that 41% of accidental vehicle incursions are
caused by pedal error
Reiter also opines that pedal error accounts for 41% of all accidental vehicle incursion
accidents. This number is not specific to convenience stores; rather, it encompasses the universe
21

of vehicle into building crashes. Reiter reaches this conclusion based on his review of media
reports, law enforcement reports, and data from other convenience store chains. However, he
testified that more than 90% of the data that he used to estimate the percentage of pedal error
came from national media reports. Defendant argues that media reports are inherently
unreliable, and therefore Reiter’s opinion is inadmissible. Defendant points out that one of the
studies that Reiter relied upon in forming his opinions cautions about the use of media reports
because of competing and complementary issues that may bias the reporting of pedal
misapplication crashes. See National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT HS 811 597
Pedal Application Errors (Mar. 2013) (Doc. 167-5 at 4). That study further recognizes that even
reported incidents of pedal error may contain missing data if the media report does not include
information about the driver, the vehicle, the crash location, any pre-crash maneuvers, or other
specifics of the crash. (Id. at 30.) The Court agrees that Reiter’s heavy reliance on media reports
to reach his estimate that pedal error accounts for 41% of vehicle incursion accidents renders this
opinion unreliable. Therefore, the Court excludes this opinion.
While the Court excludes this particular opinion, the Court does not conclude that
Reiter’s reliance on this opinion renders his entire testimony unreliable and inadmissible.
Rather, the Court is satisfied that Reiter’s other opinions are reliable based on his opinions about
the rate of vehicle incursions generally and specifically at convenience stores along with his
experience in the industry.
c. Relevance
Last, the Court considers whether Reiter’s opinions are relevant. In performing this
analysis, the Court must determine whether the expert has applied the principles and methods to

22

the facts of the case such that his testimony “will assist the trier of fact to understand the
evidence or to determine a fact in issue.” Fed. R. Evid. 702.
Defendant challenges the relevance of Reiter’s opinions by arguing that his opinions
apply “generally” to any retail store with head-in parking, but do not account for the specific
circumstances of the accident at issue in this case. Defendant asserts, and Reiter agrees, that it
was not foreseeable to defendant that a 14-year-old unlicensed, untrained, and inexperienced
driver would be driving a vehicle in the convenience store parking lot where pedestrians were
present. Rather, Reiter bases his foreseeability opinion on his research on the rate of vehicle
incursions at convenience stores on a daily basis and his other experience in the industry. For the
same reasons explained above, defendant’s criticisms about Reiter’s failure to account for
certain, specific information involving the other vehicle incursions are proper subjects for crossexamination, but it does not require exclusion of his opinion.
Defendant also contends that Reiter’s opinions about the dangerousness of the parking lot
and the foreseeability of the accident amount to inadmissible legal conclusions. Defendant
argues that these opinions usurp the function of the jury, and therefore are inadmissible. Fed. R.
Evid. 704 permits expert testimony that “embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of
fact.” However, the Tenth Circuit has held that “[w]hile testimony on ultimate facts is
authorized under Rule 704, the committee’s comments emphasize that testimony on ultimate
questions of law is not favored.” Specht v. Jenson, 853 F.2d 805, 808 (10th Cir. 1988). The line
drawn by the Tenth Circuit between admissible and inadmissible evidence regarding legal issues
is narrow. Id. at 809. Expert testimony is admissible so long as “the expert does not attempt to
define the legal parameters within which the jury must exercise its fact-finding function.” Id. at
809–10. Here, the Court finds that Reiter’s opinions are admissible to the extent that they

23

express his opinions about the adequacy of the parking lot design and the foreseeability of curbover incidents at convenience stores. See, e.g., Storts v. Hardee’s Food Sys., Inc., Nos. 98-3285,
98-3320, 210 F.3d 390, 2000 WL 358381, at *13 (10th Cir. Apr. 6, 2000) (unpublished) (an
expert’s opinion about the foreseeability of the plaintiff’s abduction from a restaurant parking lot
that was based on the frequency of types of reported crimes was not improper testimony on the
ultimate issue where the expert was questioned in detail about the other types of crime upon
which he based his opinion and the court gave appropriate cautionary instructions to the jury).
But the Court finds that any opinion that constitutes a purely legal conclusion is inadmissible and
may not be considered on summary judgment. Of course, defendant may raise appropriate
objections during trial if counsel believes that some of Reiter’s testimony represents an attempt
by plaintiff to “define the legal parameters within which the jury must exercise its fact-finding
function.” Specht, 853 F.2d at 809–10.
Defendant next asserts that Reiter’s opinions are based on evidence about other accidents
that are not similar to the accident at issue in this case, and therefore his opinion is not relevant to
this case. Defendant cites Black v. M& W Gear Co., 269 F.3d 1220 (10th Cir. 2011), as support
for its position, but that case appears to support admission of Reiter’s opinions, not their
exclusion. In Black, the Tenth Circuit considered whether a district court had erred by admitting
expert opinion that relied on statistics about other accidents that were not shown to be
“substantially similar” to the accident at issue in the case. Id. at 1227. The court held that
“under circuit precedent . . . experts are allowed to base their opinions on otherwise inadmissible
evidence if the basis upon which the evidence would otherwise be considered inadmissible is
reliability or relevance concerns.” Id. at 1229. The court found that the expert’s opinion about
the other accidents was properly admitted because the substantial similarity requirement derives

24

from relevance concerns, and therefore the expert could base his opinion on this inadmissible
evidence. Id. Likewise, in this case, Reiter’s reliance on information about other accidents does
not require exclusion of his opinion. Moreover, the other accidents upon which Reiter relies are
not substantially similar to the accident at issue. Defendant points out that Reiter is unable to
identify the ages of the motorists involved in those accidents, the locations of the accidents, or
whether the incidents involved head-in parking. But each of the accidents involved a vehicle
jumping the curb and striking a pedestrian and/or storefront, which resembles the facts of the
accident at issue here. The Court declines to exclude Reiter’s opinion on this basis. 7
Finally, defendant argues that Reiter’s opinion that the accident was foreseeable and that
bollards should have been installed at the convenience store is improper and prejudicial.
Defendant argues that Reiter is unable to determine the likelihood of a vehicle incursion incident
at the convenience store in issue, and therefore, his opinion is based only on his subjective belief.
The Court disagrees. Reiter bases his opinion on reliable data involving the rate of vehicle
incursions and his experience as addressed above. Defendant’s arguments about what Reiter
does not know or fails to consider about the convenience store at issue go to the weight and not
the admissibility of the opinion. The Court also does not find that defendant has demonstrated
prejudice at this stage of the proceedings. The Court will consider this opinion on summary
judgment, but as noted above, defendant remains free to challenge the admissibility of any of the
underlying data before trial.
For all these reasons, the Court is persuaded that Reiter’s expert testimony would aid the
jury to understand the issues in this case. Therefore, the Court finds that Reiter’s opinions are
relevant.
7

The Court makes clear that it is not ruling on the admissibility of data involving other
accidents. That issue is not before the Court at the present posture.
25

2. Warren Vander Helm
Plaintiff has designated Warren Vander Helm to offer expert opinion testimony about the
defective and unreasonably dangerous design of the convenience store parking lot at issue and
the foreseeability of the accident. In his expert report, Vander Helm opines that the premises of
the convenience store at issue in this case was not reasonably safe in that it failed to (1) maintain
a safe walkway free of hazards and (2) separate vehicular traffic from store patrons. Therefore,
Vander Helm states that these purported shortcomings “creat[ed] foreseeable injury to patrons.”
(Doc. 169-2 at 2.)
a. Qualifications
Defendant does not challenge Vander Helm’s qualifications. The Court notes that
Vander Helm is the Managing Partner of Parking Design Group, LLP, a company which
specializes in the design, planning, and management of parking lots and multi-level parking
structures. Vander Helm has over 30 years of parking design and planning experience, including
land-use planning, site evaluation, conceptual design, needs assessment, parking studies,
feasibility studies, premises liability, operations and management, and parking facility design.
He also has provided parking design consultation to architects, developers, commercial property
owners, and municipalities throughout the country, and he has helped develop and plan
commercial parking operations in over 80 cities throughout the United States. Vander Helm also
has provided management consulting to parking assets for shopping centers, strip malls,
restaurants, universities, public buildings, hotels, municipalities, business parks, apartment
communities, and mixed-use environments, including advice about sustainable parking
management plans. The Court finds that Vander Helm is qualified to provide expert opinion
testimony in this case.

26

b. Reliability
Defendant contends that Vander Helm’s opinions are not reliable because he did not
perform his own research in forming his conclusions; rather, he relies on the data compiled by
Robert Reiter about the rate of accidental vehicle incursions and pedal error. An expert may
base his opinion on facts or data that experts in the particular field would rely on reasonably in
forming an opinion on the subject. Fed. R. Evid. 703. The Court has reviewed the materials
cited by Vander Helm and determines that they are “of a type reasonably relied upon by experts
in the particular field,” as required by Fed. R. Evid. 703.
Here, defendant argues, as it did above, that the underlying data provided by Reiter is
unreliable. Therefore, defendant asserts that Vander Helm’s opinion is not reliable because it is
based on the same flawed data. As explained above, the Court finds that Reiter’s opinion that
some 20 vehicle incursions occur on a daily basis at convenience stores is based on reliable data
and therefore admissible. The Court excludes Vander Helm’s opinion that 41% of vehicle
incursions are caused by pedal error because that opinion is based predominately upon media
reports which renders it unreliable.
The Court therefore excludes Vander Helm’s opinions to the extent they are based on
Reiter’s statistic that 41% of vehicle incursions occur due to pedal error. The Court does not find
that Vander Helm’s reliance on this particular piece of data renders his entire opinion testimony
inadmissible. Rather, the Court is satisfied that Vander Helm’s opinions are reliable based on his
consideration of Reiter’s opinion about the rate of vehicle incursions at convenience stores and
his experience in the industry of parking lot design and planning.
Defendant further challenges Vander Helm’s opinions based on information that he
admittedly does not know. Vander Helm testified that he does not know how many vehicle

27

incursion accidents happen on a daily basis at convenience stores like the one at issue in this
case, how many individuals were injured from vehicle incursions involving head-in parking (for
either the year of the accident or the 5 years preceding the accident), how many individuals
sustained injuries at retail establishments from vehicle incursions, or how many vehicle
incursions result from pedal error. Defendant contends that without such information, Vander
Helm’s opinion that the design of the parking lot was dangerous is based on speculation. The
Court disagrees. As described above, Vander Helm has extensive experience in parking lot
design and planning, upon which he bases his opinions in this case. His lack of knowledge
specific to vehicle incursion accidents is an appropriate topic for defendant to explore on crossexamination, but it does not require exclusion of his opinion testimony.
c. Relevance
In arguing that Vander Helm’s opinions are not relevant, defendant makes the same
arguments it made when objecting to the relevance of Robert Reiter’s opinions. Defendant
contends that Vander Helm’s opinions will not assist the trier of fact because they apply
“generally” to any retail store with head-in parking without accounting for the specific
circumstances of the accident at issue in this case. Defendant also argues that Vander Helm’s
opinions must be excluded because they are inadmissible legal conclusions. Defendant also
criticizes Vander Helm for basing his opinion on Reiter’s data which defendant contends is
flawed and fails to account for other certain factors. For the same reasons addressed above, the
Court rejects these arguments. The Court finds that Vander Helm’s opinions are relevant to the
issues in this case, and any concerns raised by defendant are better addressed through crossexamination.

28

3. Anthony Gamboa
Defendant next seeks exclusion of the expert opinion testimony of Anthony Gamboa.
Plaintiff has designed Gamboa to offer expert opinion testimony about plaintiff’s loss of earning
capacity as a result of the injuries she sustained in the accident and the present value of the
plaintiff’s future medical treatment, as described in the life care plan prepared by Laura
Lampton. Defendant does not challenge Gamboa’s qualifications to provide expert testimony in
this case. The Court has reviewed Gamboa’s curriculum vitae and determines that he is qualified
to render expert testimony in this case based on his education, training, and experience.
Instead, defendant contends that Gamboa’s expert testimony is unreliable, based on
speculation, and not supported by the evidence. Specifically, defendant claims that Gamboa’s
opinion is based on the underlying assumption that plaintiff sustained a permanent physical
impairment which defendant contends is not supported by the evidence. In preparing his expert
opinion in this case, Gamboa interviewed plaintiff and obtained information about her medical
condition. Plaintiff reported to him that she has difficultly with prolonged walking and
prolonged standing, she is unable to run anymore, she must work in a job that allows her to sit,
she is unable to squat or kneel, and she may likely require knee replacement surgery in the
future. After the interview, Gamboa then reviewed plaintiff’s medical records to determine
whether plaintiff’s self-described limitations were consistent with the limitations described by
her health care providers in the medical records. Here, Gamboa determined that plaintiff’s
description of her injuries was congruent with the nature of the impairment described in the
medical records. Based on the physical limitations described by plaintiff and confirmed in her
medical records, Gamboa concluded that plaintiff has a mobility disability as defined by the U.S.

29

Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (“ACS”). Under this definition, an individual
has a mobility disability if she has serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs.
Gamboa also testified in his deposition that the first step in performing his vocational
economic assessment is to determine whether a physician has diagnosed the individual with a
permanent physical impairment. Gamboa admits that if there is no medically-diagnosed
permanent physical impairment, then he does not perform a vocational economic assessment on
the loss of earning capacity. In his case, Gamboa is not aware of any physician diagnosing
plaintiff with a permanent physical impairment. Rather, he assumes that information is
forthcoming. And, he admits that if there is no permanent physical impairment diagnosed by a
doctor, then plaintiff has suffered no loss of earning capacity.
Defendant contends that Gamboa’s opinion is based on unsubstantiated evidence because
no physician has diagnosed plaintiff with a permanent physical injury or has concluded that she
has serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs. The Court does not find that the assumption
that plaintiff suffers from a permanent physical impairment renders Gamboa’s testimony
sufficiently unreliable to compel its exclusion. Rather, the Court finds that defendant’s concerns
about the underlying assumptions of Gamboa’s opinion are better challenged through crossexamination than in determining the admissibility of expert testimony.
Moreover, plaintiff’s treating orthopedic surgeon, who performed surgery on her knees,
testified that while plaintiff is not currently subject to any medical restrictions, he does anticipate
that plaintiff will have limitations on her daily living activities due to her knee injuries. He
described the knee fractures that plaintiff sustained and the resulting damage to the knee cartilage
that has caused plaintiff to develop arthritic knees. Plaintiff’s treating orthopedic surgeon
predicts that chances are high that plaintiff will develop bone to bone arthritic changes in her

30

right knee, and at some point plaintiff will mostly likely have no cartilage on the end of her right
knee. While he recognizes that it is impossible to predict, plaintiff’s treating orthopedic surgeon
testified that there is a high probability that plaintiff will require total knee replacement surgery
in the future. The orthopedic surgeon also had discussions with plaintiff about her limited
mobility and her inability to walk for more than 10 minutes due to pain. The Court concludes
that Gamboa’s opinion is based on reliable underlying facts and declines to exclude his opinion.
4. Laura Lampton
Plaintiff has designated Laura Lampton to offer expert opinion testimony about the cost
of plaintiff’s future needs, care, and medical treatment as a consequence of the injuries she
sustained in the accident. Defendant challenges Lampton’s opinions on two bases.
First, defendant contends that Lampton cannot testify about the medical necessity of any
future medical care or treatment because she was not designated to testify on this topic and she is
not qualified to testify about this topic because she is a registered nurse, not a medical physician.
The Court rejects this argument. Plaintiff designated Lampton to testify about “the cost of
[plaintiff’s] future needs, care, and treatment” as a result of the injuries she sustained in the
accident. The designation included a specific reference to plaintiff’s future “needs,” and as
stated in her expert report, Lampton bases her opinions about plaintiff’s future needs on
information she received from plaintiff’s medical providers either through phone calls or from a
review of plaintiff’s medical records.8 In fact, plaintiff designated two of her treating providers,

Defendant does not challenge Lampton’s qualifications to provide expert opinion about a
life care plan. Defendant only objects to Lampton’s qualifications to testify about the medical
necessity of certain treatment. As explained above, Lampton may rely on the information
provided by plaintiff’s medical providers about the medical necessity of certain treatment. The
Court further notes that it has reviewed Lampton’s expert report which includes her curriculum
vitae. Based on her education, training, and experience, the Court finds that Lampton is
qualified to provide expert opinion testimony about plaintiff’s life care plan.
8

31

Dr. Molly Black and Dr. Daniel Farrell, to provide expert opinion testimony on “expected future
symptoms, physical impairments and treatments.” It is proper for plaintiff’s treating physicians
to render such opinions. See Goeken v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 99–4191–SAC, 2001 WL
1159751, at *3 (D. Kan. Aug. 16, 2011) (holding that a treating physician may testify to
prognosis, the extent of present and future disability, and the need for future medical treatment as
long as the opinion is based on the physician’s personal knowledge gained from the care and
treatment of the plaintiff). It is also appropriate for Lampton to base her opinions on the
underlying information she receives from plaintiff’s medical providers. See, e.g., O’Shea v.
Welch, No. 01-2336-JWL, 2002 WL 1974046, at *2 (D. Kan. Aug. 15, 2002) (accepting the
testimony of a qualified expert life care planner who prepared a life care plan and based the
future medical needs of the plaintiff on information that she received from plaintiff’s treating
physician).
Second, defendant argues that Lampton’s report is unreliable because she includes the
costs for certain future medical treatment which defendant contends is speculative and not
supported by the evidence. Defendant asserts that it is speculative for Lampton to opine that
plaintiff’s future medical treatment will include right and left knee replacements, a hip
replacement, and a cesarean section. As noted above, Lampton bases her opinion on information
she received from plaintiff’s medical providers. The Court finds that Lampton’s opinion about
plaintiff’s need to undergo right knee replacement surgery is supported by information provided
by plaintiff’s treating orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Daniel Farrell. Dr. Farrell testified that plaintiff
will likely require total knee replacement surgery on her right knee. While he notes that “it is
impossible to state for sure” whether plaintiff will require knee replacement surgery on her right
knee, he believes the “probability is high” that such surgery will be necessary. Plaintiff need not

32

show that the expert opinion is “undisputably correct” as long as the expert’s method is
scientifically sound and that the opinion is based on facts that satisfy Rule 702’s reliability
requirements. Goebel, 346 F.3d at 991 (citing Mitchell, 165 F.3d at 781). The Court is satisfied
that Lampton bases her opinion on the need for right knee surgery on reliable information
provided by Dr. Farrell. Therefore, Lampton may provide expert testimony about future knee
replacement surgery on plaintiff’s right knee.
The Court also finds that Lampton bases her opinion on plaintiff’s need for a cesarean
section on reliable information. Dr. Molly Black, an orthopedic surgeon and plaintiff’s treating
physician, testified that if plaintiff were to become pregnant at some point in her life, “most”
obstetricians will require plaintiff to undergo a cesarean section due to the nature of her pelvic
injury. Dr. Black further testified that plaintiff “in theory” could have a vaginal delivery if there
is not a lot of scar tissue from the injury, but the obstetrician will make that call. While Dr.
Black’s testimony about the need for a cesarean section may not be “undisputably correct,” the
Court finds that her opinion is reliable. The concerns raised by defendant about plaintiff’s ability
“in theory” to have a vaginal delivery rather than a cesarean section may be addressed on crossexamination. The Court therefore concludes that Lampton may testify that plaintiff’s future
medical care may include a cesarean section.
The Court comes to a different conclusion about plaintiff’s need for left knee replacement
surgery and hip surgery. The record provides no reliable evidence to support Lampton’s opinion
that plaintiff will require these procedures in the future. Regarding plaintiff’s left knee, Dr.
Farrell testified that the injuries to that knee were less severe than those to the right knee.
Plaintiff is currently experiencing mild to moderate arthritis on the left knee, but Dr. Farrell is
unable to predict with any certainty whether plaintiff will require total knee replacement on her

33

left knee. He testified that it will depend on whether her left knee experiences additional arthritic
changes which will require further monitoring. Turning to plaintiff’s pelvic injury, Dr. Black
testified “with 99 percent confidence” that plaintiff will not need additional orthopedic pelvic
surgery, that plaintiff will not require any future care or treatment specifically for her pelvis, and
that plaintiff does not have any complications or arthritic changes that would require future
medical treatment for her pelvis. The testimony about the need for left knee replacement surgery
and hip surgery is not sufficiently reliable for Lampton to opine that plaintiff will require these
medical procedures in the future. Consequently, the Court excludes these opinions.
5. Conclusion
As described above, the Court grants in part and denies in part defendant’s Motion to
Exclude Expert Testimony that seeks to exclude the testimony of Robert Reiter, Warren Vander
Helm, Anthony Gamboa, and Laura Lampton. The Court determines that each of these
witnesses is qualified to testify as an expert in this case. The Court also finds certain of the
proffered opinions of these four experts are reliable and relevant as described above, and
therefore those opinions are admissible as expert testimony. The Court, however, excludes
Reiter’s and Vander Helm’s opinions that are based Reiter’s statistic that 41% of vehicle
incursions occur due to pedal error. The Court also excludes Lampton’s opinions that plaintiff’s
future medical care includes a left knee replacement and hip surgery. The Court denies
defendant’s motion in all other respects.
II.

Motion for Summary Judgment
A. Uncontroverted Facts

The following facts either have been stipulated by the parties in the parties’ joint
stipulations of fact (Doc. 159) or are stated in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the nonmoving

34

party. On September 18, 2011, C.M. was operating a 1999 Mercedes ML 320 owned by
Kenneth Keen. About a week earlier, Keen had given his friend, Charles Conner, the keys to the
Mercedes and had asked him to keep the vehicle running while Keen was out of town for about a
month. Around 12:30 or 1:00 p.m. on September 18, 2011, Conner went to the home of Dallas
Hartman to watch a football game. Both Conner and Hartman consumed alcohol that afternoon
at Hartman’s home. Shortly before 6:45 p.m., Hartman told Conner that he needed cigarettes but
his car would not start. In response, Conner told Hartman that he could take the Mercedes to buy
cigarettes.
On that date, C.M. was 14 years old, not of legal driving age, and did not have a license
to drive. Before the accident, C.M. had driven a vehicle about two or three times on back roads
with her mother. Despite C.M.’s inexperience with driving and her lack of a driver’s license,
Hartman allowed C.M. to drive the Mercedes because he was afraid that he was too intoxicated
to drive and he had a prior DWI conviction. Hartman rode as a passenger in the vehicle. C.M.
drove the Mercedes from her residence to a convenience store owned and operated by defendant.
As C.M. attempted to park the vehicle at a head-in parking space in front of the convenience
store, she mistakenly pressed the accelerator instead of the brake. The Mercedes drove over the
curb and struck plaintiff, who was standing on the sidewalk in front of the convenience store. As
a result, plaintiff sustained injuries.
Kansas law prohibits unlicensed drivers from operating motor vehicles. K.S.A. § 8-235.9
C.M. was charged in the District Court of Johnson County, Kansas with violating K.S.A. § 8235, based on her operation of a motor vehicle without a valid driver’s license on September 18,
9

The Court may take judicial notice of the Kansas statutes. United States v. One (1) 1975
Thunderbird 2-Door Hardtop White in Color with Burnt Orange Vinyl Landau Top, 576 F.2d
834, 836 (10th Cir. 1978) (citing Owings v. Hull, 34 U.S. 607 (1835)).
35

2011.10 Kansas law also prohibits individuals from knowingly causing or encouraging a child
under 18 years of age to commit a traffic infraction. K.S.A. § 21-5603(a)(2). Because of his
actions on September 18, 2011, Hartman was charged in the District Court of Johnson County,
Kansas, with unlawfully, knowingly, and willfully causing or encouraging a child under 18 years
of age to commit a traffic infraction in violation of K.S.A. §§ 21-5603(a)(2) and 21-6602(a)(1).
On May 17, 2012, Hartman pleaded guilty to the charges under K.S.A. §§ 21-5603(a)(2) and 216602(a)(1).
Defendant operates approximately 1,650 stores in the United States. Defendant is aware
of “100 plus” incidents at its convenience stores where a vehicle jumped the curb and struck the
building or a pedestrian. Two of these “100 plus” vehicle incursions resulted in bodily injury.11
At the Gardner, Kansas, convenience store at issue in this case, another vehicle incursion
accident occurred in 2009. In that instance, the driver was 47 years old and had a valid driver’s
license. The driver mistakenly hit the accelerator rather than the brake, and the vehicle jumped

10

The Court may take judicial notice of public records from other proceedings. Tri-State
Truck Ins., Ltd. v. First Nat’l Bank of Wamego, 931 F. Supp. 2d 1120, 1123 (D. Kan. 2013)
(citing United States v. Ahidley, 486 F.3d 1184, 1192 n.5 (10th Cir. 2007); Hemphill v.
Kimberly–Clark Corp., 605 F. Supp. 2d 183, 186 (D.D.C. 2009)).
11

Plaintiff has submitted as part of the summary judgment record several incident reports
that purport to represent other vehicle incursion incidents at defendant’s stores across the
country. (See Doc. 175-7 (Exhibit G).) Defendant asserts that these incident reports lack
foundation and cannot be considered on summary judgment. But the Tenth Circuit does “not
require an affidavit to authenticate every document submitted for consideration at summary
judgment. Rather, documents produced during discovery that are on the letterhead of the
opposing, producing party are authentic per se for purposes of Federal Rule of Evidence 901.”
Law Co., Inc. v. Mohawk Constr. and Supp. Co., Inc., 577 F.3d 1164, 1170 (10th Cir. 2009)
(citations omitted). Also, the Court may find that a document is sufficiently authenticated given
the “‘[a]ppearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics,
taken in conjunction with circumstances.’” Id. at 1171 (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(4)). The
incident reports were produced by defendant in this lawsuit, and many of them contain the
company name and/or logo at the top of the report. Given the circumstances, the Court finds that
these incident reports are sufficiently authenticated for consideration at summary judgment.
36

the curb onto the sidewalk and struck the building. At the time of the 2009 accident, defendant
did not own the convenience store but acquired it shortly after it in December 2010. Defendant
concedes it knew about the 2009 accident before plaintiff was injured in the accident at issue.
Defendant has installed bollards at all of its newly constructed stores for the past 15
years. A bollard is a vertical pipe or tube that is usually made of steel and installed in a sequence
to provide a barrier between vehicles and a building or vehicles and a sidewalk. Defendant’s
reason for installing bollards at its new stores is based on branding, safety, and protection of the
building. Defendant installs bollards at its new stores, regardless of whether local code requires
their installation. But defendant has not installed bollards at its older stores because the law does
not require it to do so. Defendant’s corporate representative admits that the company is aware
that anytime a pedestrian is standing on a sidewalk in front of one of its convenience stores that
has not been built in the last 15 years, there is a risk that the pedestrian will be hit by a vehicle
that hops the curb.
Plaintiff’s expert, Robert Reiter, describes the accident as an “accidental vehicle
incursion,” which occurs when driver error or car malfunction causes a vehicle to drive into a
building. According to Reiter, one form of driver error is “pedal error,” which occurs when a
driver thinks her foot is on the brake but it is in fact on the accelerator, as occurred in the
accident at issue. Reiter testified that the scope of accidental vehicle incursions is not commonly
realized, but the fact that they occur is commonly realized. While vehicle incursions would not
normally occur in the ordinary and reasonable operation of a vehicle, plaintiff’s expert, Warren
Vander Helm, states that they occur between 25 and 35 times a day. However, Vander Helm is
not aware of the number of vehicle incursions that occur on a daily basis at convenience stores
like the one at issue in this case or how many individuals were injured as a result of vehicle

37

incursions involving head-in parking in the same year as the accident or any of the five years
before that accident. Vander Helm testified that this is the only case he knows of that involves
an unlicensed, untrained, and inexperienced driver who mistook a gas pedal for the brake, drove
over a curb, and hit a pedestrian.
According to Reiter, 40 to 50 vehicle incursion accidents occur in the United States each
day. Reiter further opines that each day there are 20 vehicle incursion accidents at the 160,000
convenience stores located in the United States. Reiter states that there is a high potential for
vehicle incursions with head-in parking spaces in front of convenience stores because
conveniences stores, by their nature, are speed oriented and the turnover in parking is frequent.
Reiter believes there is a very high risk that another vehicle incursion will occur in the next five
years at the convenience store at issue. He estimates there will be three to five additional vehicle
incursion accidents at this convenience store unless steps are taken to prevent them. Reiter is
unaware of any research or evidence showing the number of vehicle incursions that have caused
bodily injury to patrons standing inside or outside of a convenience store. But Reiter estimates
that fewer than 10% of all vehicle incursions cause personal injury to patrons, whether located
inside or outside the store.
Plaintiff’s experts, Reiter and Vander Helm, agree that plaintiff would not have been
injured had C.M., an unlicensed, inexperienced, and untrained driver, not operated the Mercedes
SUV on September 18, 2011. Plaintiff’s experts also agree that plaintiff would not have
sustained injury had C.M. not committed the pedal error of pressing the accelerator instead of the
brake. Reiter testified that presumably plaintiff would not have been injured had C.M. not lost
control of the vehicle causing it to jump the curb and strike plaintiff. Reiter also testified that
plaintiff presumably would not have been injured had C.M.’s mother stopped her from driving

38

the Mercedes. Vander Helm testified that the accident would not have occurred without human
error and C.M. would not have been in a position to mistake the gas pedal for the brake if
Hartman had refused to allow C.M. to drive that night. Vander Helm further testified that while
an owner or operator of a business has a duty to protect its patrons, it does not have control over
the conduct of visiting third parties or the operation of a vehicle being driven by a patron.
Reiter testified that it was not foreseeable to defendant that a 14 year old, unlicensed,
untrained, and inexperienced driver would be driving a vehicle in its parking lot or that Hartman
was going to put a 14 year old, unlicensed, untrained, and inexperienced driver behind the wheel
of the Mercedes. Vander Helm agrees that it is not foreseeable that a person would engage in
criminal or illegal conduct.
Defendant’s expert, Richard Blomberg, admits that plaintiff’s injury may have had a
different outcome had bollards been installed at the convenience store. Blomberg admits that
pedal error is a “known phenomenon” in the traffic safety industry and that pedal error can occur
anywhere including parking lots. Blomberg agrees that pedal error may occur in drivers of all
ages. He also agrees that whether the driver did or did not have a learner’s permit to drive is not
going to prevent or cause the accident at issue.
B. Legal Standard
Summary judgment is appropriate if the moving party demonstrates that there is “no
genuine dispute as to any material fact” and that it is “entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). When it applies this standard, the Court views the evidence and draws
inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Nahno-Lopez v. Houser, 625 F.3d
1279, 1283 (10th Cir. 2010) (citing Oldenkamp v. United Am. Ins. Co., 619 F.3d 1243, 1245–46
(10th Cir. 2010)). “An issue of fact is ‘genuine’ ‘if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury

39

could return a verdict for the non-moving party’ on the issue.” Id. (quoting Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)). “An issue of fact is ‘material’ ‘if under the substantive
law it is essential to the proper disposition of the claim’ or defense.” Id. (quoting Adler v. WalMart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 664, 670 (10th Cir. 1998) (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248)).
The moving party bears “both the initial burden of production on a motion for summary
judgment and the burden of establishing that summary judgment is appropriate as a matter of
law.” Kannady v. City of Kiowa, 590 F.3d 1161, 1169 (10th Cir. 2010) (citing Trainor v. Apollo
Metal Specialties, Inc., 318 F.3d 976, 979 (10th Cir. 2003)). In attempting to meet this burden,
the moving party “need not negate the non-movant’s claim, but need only point to an absence of
evidence to support the non-movant’s claim.” Id. (citing Sigmon v. CommunityCare HMO, Inc.,
234 F.3d 1121, 1125 (10th Cir. 2000)).
If the moving party satisfies its initial burden, the non-moving party “‘may not rest on its
pleadings, but must bring forward specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial as to those
dispositive matters for which it carries the burden of proof.’” Id. (quoting Jenkins v. Wood, 81
F.3d 988, 990 (10th Cir. 1996)); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986);
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248–49. “To accomplish this, the facts must be identified by reference to
affidavits, deposition transcripts, or specific exhibits incorporated therein.” Adler v. Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 664, 670 (10th Cir. 1998) (citing Thomas v. Wichita Coca–Cola Bottling
Co., 968 F.2d 1022, 1024 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1013 (1992)).
Finally, summary judgment is not a “disfavored procedural shortcut.” Celotex, 477 U.S.
at 327. Rather, it is an important procedure “designed ‘to secure the just, speedy and
inexpensive determination of every action.’” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 1).

40

C. Analysis
Plaintiff brings a negligence claim under Kansas law against defendant claiming that
defendant breached it duty of care by failing to keep plaintiff reasonably safe under the
circumstances. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that defendant breached its duty by failing to install
parking bollards or wheel stops or take other precautionary measures to protect the storefront and
pedestrians.
1. Kansas Law
In Kansas, a negligence claim requires: (1) the existence of a duty, (2) breach of that
duty, (3) injury, and (4) a causal connection between the duty breached and the injury suffered.
Smith v. Kansas Gas Serv. Co., 169 P.3d 1052, 1057 (Kan. 2007) (quoting Schmidt v. HTG, Inc.,
961 P.2d 677, 693 (Kan. 1998)) (further internal quotations omitted). “‘Whether a duty exists is
a question of law.’” Id. (quoting Schmidt, 961 P.2d at 693) (further internal quotations omitted).
“Whether the duty has been breached is a question of fact.” Id. (internal quotations omitted).
Defendant contends it is entitled to summary judgment because it owed no legal duty to
plaintiff because her injury was not foreseeable and was caused by the negligent and/or criminal
conduct of third parties over which defendant had no control. The Court must determine whether
a duty existed because without a duty there can be no breach to support a negligence claim.
Nero v. Kansas State Univ., 861 P.2d 768, 772 (Kan. 1993) (citation omitted).
Plaintiff’s negligence claim is governed by the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 344
(1965) which states:
A possessor of land who holds it open to the public for entry for his business
purposes is subject to liability to members of the public while they are upon the
land for such a purpose, for physical harm caused by the accidental, negligent, or
intentionally harmful acts of third persons or animals, and by the failure of the
possessor to exercise reasonable care to

41

(a) discover that such acts are being done or are likely to be done, or
(b) give a warning adequate to enable the visitors to avoid the harm, or
otherwise protect them against it.
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 344 (1965); see also Gould v. Taco Bell, 722 P.2d 511,
568 (Kan. 1986) (adopting the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 344). Comment f to this
section provides:
f. Duty to police premises. Since the possessor is not an insurer of the visitor's
safety, he is ordinarily under no duty to exercise any care until he knows or has
reason to know that the acts of the third person are occurring, or are about to
occur. He may, however, know or have reason to know, from past experience,
that there is a likelihood of conduct on the part of third persons in general which
is likely to endanger the safety of the visitor, even though he has no reason to
expect it on the part of any particular individual.
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 344 cmt. f (1965); see also South ex. rel. South v. McCarter,
119 P.3d 1, 12 (Kan. 2005) (citing the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 344 cmt. f).
In Kansas, the owner or operator of a business is “not the insurer of the safety of its
patrons or customers.” Seibert v. Vic Regnier Builders, Inc., 856 P.2d 1332, 1338 (Kan. 1993).
“The owner ordinarily has no liability for injuries inflicted upon patrons or customers by the
criminal acts of third parties in the business’ parking lot, as the owner has no duty to provide
security.” Id. “Such a duty may arise, however, where circumstances exist from which the
owner could reasonably foresee that its customers have a risk of peril above and beyond the
ordinary and that appropriate security measures should be taken.” Id.
The Kansas Supreme Court has explained that “[t]he duty of care is intertwined with the
foreseeability of harm.” Shirley v. Glass, 308 P.3d 1, 9 (Kan. 2013) (citing South ex rel. South v.
McCarter, 119 P.3d 1 (Kan. 2005) (injury is foreseeable so as to give rise to duty of care when
defendant knows or reasonably should know that conduct likely will result in harm)). In
determining the foreseeability of the harm, Kansas courts apply the following standard:
42

Whether risk of harm is reasonably foreseeable is a question to be determined by
the trier of fact. Only when reasonable persons could arrive at but one conclusion
may the court determine the question as a matter of law. When there was no
evidence of a risk of harm presented, the question of foreseeability of the harm is
a matter of law.
Beshears By and Through Reiman v. Unified School Dist. No. 305, 930 P.2d 1376, 1384 (Kan.
1997) (citing Kansas State Bank & Tr. Co. v. Specialized Transp. Servs., Inc., 819 P.2d 587
(Kan. 1991)).
2. Foreseeability of Plaintiff’s Injuries
Defendant contends that it could not have foreseen the criminal actions of third parties
over whom it had no control, in particular that a 14 year old unlicensed, untrained, and underage
driver would drive illegally to its convenience store for an adult who had been drinking alcohol,
commit a pedal error, drive the vehicle over the curb, and injure plaintiff. However, defendants
do not correctly frame the issue under Kansas law. The Court does not consider whether
“defendant should have anticipated the particular act from which the injury resulted, but whether
it should have foreseen the probability that injury might result.” OMI Holdings, Inc. v. Howell,
918 P.2d 1274, 1295 (Kan. 1996) (citations omitted) (emphasis added). Therefore, the Court’s
operative analysis considers whether defendant, in this case, should have foreseen the probability
that injury might result to plaintiff as a pedestrian on the walkway in front of its convenience
store.
The Court agrees with the parties that no reported Kansas case has addressed whether a
business owner is liable for injuries that a patron sustains from a vehicle incursion accident.
Numerous other courts have addressed similar factual scenarios and have arrived at differing

43

conclusions. Defendant cites several cases from other jurisdictions12 where courts have
concluded that a business owner is not liable to a patron who is injured by a vehicle in or around
the property. See, e.g., Stratioti v. Bick, 704 F.2d 1052, 1055–56 (8th Cir. 1983) (applying
Minnesota law and holding that a runaway vehicle hitting pedestrians who were crossing a
driveway that ran parallel to a store was not foreseeable); Achtermann v. Bussard, No. 05C-04198 RRC, 2007 WL 901642, at *4 (Del. Super. Ct. Mar. 22, 2007) (vehicle driving over a curb,
across a sidewalk, through the front wall of a restaurant was not foreseeable; no prior accidents
had occurred at the business); Schatz v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 128 So.2d 901, 904 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
1961) (driver negligently driving car over curb and sidewalk was “unusual or extraordinary” and
“unforeseeable in contemplation of the law”); Sotomayor v. Tama I, LLC, 617 S.E.2d 606, 610
(Ga. Ct. App. 2005) (driver driving over a raised concrete curb, sidewalk, and section of grass
before striking a pedestrian into an apartment building was not foreseeable; no prior incidents of
driving into the wall of an apartment building); Schoop’s Rest. v. Hardy, 863 N.E.2d 451, 455
(Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (no evidence that a vehicle crashing into a restaurant was foreseeable; no

12

One of the cases cited by defendant has since been overruled. Defendant cites Rodriguez
v. Del Sol Shopping Ctr. Assocs., L.P., 297 P.3d 334 (N.M. Ct. App. 2012) as a “perfect
example” of a case where a court refused to impose a duty on a business owner to protect patrons
from vehicles that depart from the confines of designed parking areas. On May 8, 2014, after the
parties had submitted the summary judgment briefing in this case, the Supreme Court of New
Mexico reversed the appellate court’s decision finding that it improperly considered
foreseeability when determining the existence of a duty. Rodriquez v. Del Sol Shopping Ctr.
Assocs., L.P., Nos. 33,896 & 33,949, __ P.3d __, 2014 WL 1831148, *1 (N.M. May 8, 2014).
The court held that the consideration of foreseeability as part of the duty of care is inconsistent
with the approach of the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional
Harm § 7. Id. at *5.
The Court does not apply Rodriquez in this case because it is inconsistent with the
governing law of Kansas as described above. In Kansas, “[t]he duty of care is intertwined with
the foreseeability of harm.” Shirley v. Glass, 308 P.3d 1, 9 (Kan. 2013) (citation omitted).
Further, unlike New Mexico, Kansas has not specifically adopted the Restatement (Third) of
Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm § 7.
44

evidence of “prior similar incidents”); Mayeur v. Time Saver, Inc., 484 So.2d 192, 195 (La. Ct.
App. 1986) (not foreseeable that a driver will “negligently drive her car from the parking lot,
over the curb, across the walkway and into a patron about to enter the store”); Carpenter v. StopN-Go Mkts. of Ga., Inc., 512 So.2d 708, 709 (Miss. 1987) (convenience store had no duty to
erect barriers to prevent auto from coming through store window although there had been one
prior accident); Mack v. McGrath, 150 N.W.2d 681, 685–86 (Minn. 1967) (“The fact that over a
period of five years two automobiles had gone over curbs and struck buildings did not, in our
opinion, impose on the landowner a duty to anticipate and prevent the possibility of injury from
other runaway vehicles.”); Grandy v. Bavaro, 134 A.D.2d 957, 957 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)
(landowner had no duty “to guard against the unforeseeable risk that a car driven by an
inexperienced driver will jump the curb and strike a pedestrian”); Skubovious v. Clough, 670
N.E.2d 578, 580, 581–82 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996) (not foreseeable that a vehicle would have been
driven over a curb, across a sidewalk, and into a building; there were no “such prior accidents” at
the business which would have led it “to foresee the occurrence and guard against the
possibility”); Cromer v. Hutto, 280 S.E.2d 202, 203 (S.C. 1981) (not foreseeable that plaintiff
would be injured while standing below a retaining wall when a car jumped over a curb, went
through a shrubbery row, and over the retaining wall).
In addition, the Court has located additional cases where courts have refused to impose
liability upon business owners for injuries sustained by patrons from errant vehicles. See, e.g.,
Estate of Myers ex rel. Myers v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 5:09-CV-549-FL, 2011 WL
1366459, at *7 (E.D.N.C. Apr. 11, 2011) (applying North Carolina law and concluding “that the
North Carolina [Supreme Court] would either adopt a per se rule that business owners are not
liable for accidents caused by runaway vehicles in their parking lots, or would apply long-

45

standing North Carolina case law to conclude that the specific injury here was unforeseeable
where there had been no previous pedestrian-vehicle accidents in the Store’s parking lot”);
Albert v. Hsu, 602 So.2d 895, 896–897 (Ala. 1992) (foreseeability of harm resulting from a
vehicle crashing into a restaurant was “too remote” to create duty); Krispy Kreme Doughnut Co.
v. Cornett, 312 So.2d 771, 772, 775 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1975) (no liability for injuries sustained
when a vehicle drove into a shop because the parking lot met city building code); Eckerd–
Walton, Inc. v. Adams, 190 S.E.2d 490, 492 (Ga. Ct. App. 1972) (possibility of vehicle jumping
curb and striking building “so remote and improbable as not reasonably to be anticipated”);
Howe v. Stubbs, 570 A.2d 1203, 1203–1204 (Me. 1990) (no duty to protect plaintiff from a
vehicle that rolled down a hill and crashed into building, despite three prior incidents in the last
twenty-five years); Blount v. The Pantry, Inc., 936 So.2d 967, 968 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006)
(affirming dismissal of a negligence action involving a vehicle that drove over the curb in front
of a store, hitting an ice machine and pushing it into the storefront into a patron because
“business owners do not have a duty to protect invitees from the type of harm that caused [the
patron’s] injuries”); Hendricks v. Todora, 722 S.W.2d 458, 462, 465 (Tex. App. 1986) (the risk
of a drunk driver crashing into the wall of a restaurant was “so slight,” and the accident was “so
extraordinary that a reasonable person would disregard it”; no evidence of similar criminal or
reckless conduct in the area).
On the other hand, plaintiff cites several cases where courts have reached the opposite
conclusion and determined that the foreseeability of the vehicle incursion was a factual issue for
the jury’s determination. See Yang v. Pac. Castle Colima, LP, No. B227555, 2011 WL 6091245,
at *4 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 8, 2011) (concluding that summary judgment was improper because
there were fact issues about whether defendant satisfied its duty of care to a patron who was

46

injured when a car jumped the curb in front a shopping center; evidence of two previous curbjumping incidents); Barker v. Wah Low, 97 Cal. Rptr. 85, 92 (Cal. Ct. App. 1971) (reversing
summary judgment where a patron was killed while waiting at an outdoor service window when
a vehicle lurched over a wooden barrier and crushed the patron because “[r]easonable men could
believe that the possibility of a car jumping, lurching, or bolting forward because of mechanical
failure, or negligence of the driver, although remote, was foreseeable”); Thompson v. Ward
Enter., 341 So.2d 837, 839 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977) (concluding that foreseeability was a jury
question where plaintiff was injured by a vehicle while standing in front of a store without a
curb); Church’s Fried Chicken, Inc. v. Lewis, 256 S.E.2d 916, 920 (Ga. Ct. App. 1979) (holding
that “whether the defendant reasonably should have anticipated the event which occurred, and
taken reasonable steps to prevent its occurrence . . . should have been submitted to the jury” in a
case where plaintiff was injured at an outdoor ordering window when a vehicle lurched into him
and there was no wheel block before the curb); Munford, Inc. v. Grier, 221 S.E.2d 700, 701 (Ga.
Ct. App. 1975) (holding that it was an issue for the jury to determine whether defendant was
negligent in the maintenance of the parking lot and sidewalk when a car jumped a six and onehalf inch high sidewalk and struck plaintiff and there had been one prior incident); Chatmon v.
Church’s Fried Chicken, Inc., 211 S.E.2d 2, 2–3 (Ga. Ct. App. 1974) (holding there were enough
factual issues that the jury should determine whether defendant was negligent when plaintiff was
injured at an outdoor service window by a vehicle that jumped a three to four inch curb with no
guard stops); Marshall v. Burger King, 856 N.E.2d 1048, 1060–61 (Ill. 2006) (refusing to find
defendant had no duty to protect plaintiff from an errant vehicle that crashed into a restaurant;
rather, the issue was whether defendant breached its duty of reasonable care and that question
could not be answered on a motion to dismiss); Ray v. Cock Robin, Inc., 293 N.E.2d 483, 489

47

(Ill. App. Ct. 1973) (a jury could conclude that defendant could “reasonably foresee or anticipate
that an out-of-control vehicle could enter into the picnic area” where there was no barrier and
there had been a prior incident); Martin v. Watson’s Grocery, 615 So.2d 999, 1001 (La. Ct. App.
1993) (finding that it was foreseeable to the store owner that his patrons might be at risk of being
struck by a vehicle when exiting the store); Dalmo Sales of Wheaton, Inc. v. Steinberg, 407 A.2d
339, 343, 348 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1979) (holding that issues of proximate cause and
foreseeability were jury issues where plaintiff was injured by an errant vehicle and two prior
incidents had occurred in the area); Zippy Prop., Inc. v. Boyd, 667 S.W.2d 312, 314–15 (Tex.
App. 1984) (affirming jury verdict in favor of plaintiff who was injured when a vehicle crashed
into a convenience store and there was evidence of “a great number of occasions vehicles had
run into defendants’ stores and into convenience stores generally”); McAllen Kentucky Fried
Chicken No. 1, Inc. v. Leal, 627 S.W.2d 480, 482 (Tex. App. 1981) (affirming jury verdict in
favor of plaintiff because the court “cannot say as a matter of law that [defendant] could not
reasonably anticipate that an automobile might run into the building causing the damages and
injuries complained about.”).
The Court is mindful also of additional cases that have concluded that issues of
foreseeability in vehicle incursion accidents are questions for the jury, not the Court. See, e.g.,
Springtree Props., Inc. v. Hammond, 692 So.2d 164, 167 (Fla. 1997) (reversing summary
judgment against plaintiff who was injured when a vehicle jumped a curb in front of a fast-food
restaurant and struck the plaintiff as he was exiting the building because whether the accident
was foreseeable was a fact issue); Grissett v. Circle K Corp., 593 So.2d 291, 293 (Fla. Dist. Ct.
App. 1992) (reversing summary judgment against plaintiff who was injured when a vehicle
rolled up on a sidewalk and struck plaintiff while he was using a public telephone because

48

foreseeability was a question for the jury); Parish v. Daigen Oil, 742 So.2d 18, 19, 25 (La. Ct.
App. 1999) (reversing summary judgment against plaintiff who was injured as she exited a
convenience store restroom and was struck by an unlicensed motorist who mistakenly pressed
the accelerator instead of the brake because whether the business owner should have known of
the risk to plaintiff and should have done more to protect plaintiff were issues for the jury);
Denisewich v. Pappas, 198 A.2d 144, 148 (R.I. 1964) (whether defendant could have
“reasonably anticipated that a business invitee’s automobile operated at a reasonable speed in the
nighttime in an unlighted parking area might by reason of the absence of an adequate barrier be
driven against the outer unsubstantial wall of the restaurant with resulting injury to plaintiff” was
a question “properly determinable at trial”).
The California Court of Appeals cited many of these cases and provided a helpful
analysis of their conflicting results in Jefferson v. Qwik Korner Market, Inc., 34 Cal. Rptr. 2d
171, 173–74 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994). The Jefferson court recognized that the “majority [of courts
considering cases involving vehicle incursion accidents] have concluded there is no liability
because such accidents are insufficiently likely as a matter of law.” Id. at 173. The “minority”
of courts in curb-jumping cases have held that liability is a question of fact for the jury. Id.
Jefferson noted that these cases fall into one of three categories.13 The first category are “cases

The court was unable to place one case in a category and referred to it as an “anomaly.”
Jefferson, 34 Cal. Rptr. at 174. In McAllen Kentucky Fried Chicken No. 1, the plaintiff was
injured when a car’s brakes failed, causing it to jump a six-inch curb, cross a sidewalk, and crash
into a store wall. Id. (citing McAllen Kentucky Fried Chicken No. 1, 627 S.W.2d at 483–84).
There were no prior incidents, but the McAllen court concluded the accident was of such a
“general character” that a reasonably careful person might have anticipated it. Id. (citing
McAllen Kentucky Fried Chicken No. 1, 627 S.W.2d at 482). The Jefferson court referred to this
as “cursory treatment” of the foreseeability issue and found the decision unpersuasive. Id. Other
than McAllen, the Jefferson court was aware of no case that imposed liability where “the
business provided both a curb and wheelstops, the parking lot design is typical of most
13

49

where the business provided no protection whatever from encroaching vehicles.” Id. (citing
Martin, 615 So.2d at 1001; Dalmo Sales of Wheaton, Inc., 407 A.2d at 341, 343; Zippy
Properties, Inc., 667 S.W.2d at 313, 315; Thompson, 341 So.2d at 838–839; Ray, 310 N.E.2d at
12; Denisewich, 198 A.2d at 147–148). The second category consists of cases where
“defendants had knowledge of prior similar incidents, and therefore the accidents were deemed
foreseeable even when there was some type of barrier.” Id. at 174 (citing Grissett, 593 So.2d at
292–293; Cohen v. Schrider, 533 So.2d 859, 860 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988); Munford, Inc., 221
S.E.2d at 701). The third category includes “cases where the building design required customers
to await service by standing adjacent to a parking lot or driveway.” Id. (citing Chatmon, 211
S.E.2d at 3; Barker, 97 Cal. Rptr. 85; Johnson v. Hatoum, 239 So.2d 22, 27 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
1970)).
The question that this case presents, however, does not call the Court to apply the socalled “majority rule.” Instead, our Court’s assignment in a diversity case like this one is to
identify the rule adopted by the Kansas Supreme Court and apply it. Macon v. United Parcel
Serv., Inc., 743 F.3d 708, 713 (10th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). Here, that assignment is a
complicated one because the Kansas Supreme Court has not addressed the issue (nor has the
Kansas Court of Appeals). Given this paucity of guidance, the Court must predict what the
Kansas Supreme Court would do if it were presented with this question. Wankier v. Crown
Equip. Corp., 353 F.3d 862, 866 (10th Cir. 2003).
The Court predicts that the Kansas Supreme Court, on these summary judgment facts,
would hold that foreseeability is a question of fact for the jury. This prediction conforms with
Kansas law requiring courts to determine foreseeability by looking at the “totality of the

businesses and meets all city standards and regulations, there were no prior similar incidents and
nothing required customers to remain in a fixed location adjacent to the parking area.” Id.
50

circumstances.” Seibert, 856 P.2d at 1339. This “totality of the circumstances” standard
suggests the Kansas Supreme Court would reject a per se rule against liability and instead look to
the specific facts of the case to determine if the harm was foreseeable.
The Court predicts likewise that the Kansas Supreme Court would decline to adopt a per
se rule that business owners are not liable for accidents caused by runaway vehicles in their
parking lots. The Court also predicts that the Kansas Supreme Court would reject the
conclusions reached by a few courts in other jurisdictions that such accidents are not foreseeable
as a matter of law, even when there is evidence of prior accidents. See Carpenter, 512 So.2d at
709 (no liability although business had one prior accident); see also Mack, 150 N.W.2d at 685–
86 (no liability despite two vehicle incursions in a five year period).
Therefore, in this case, the Court concludes that the Kansas Supreme Court would apply
the holdings from the second category of cases described by the California Court of Appeals in
Jefferson. In those cases, the business owner had installed a curb or some other barrier, but was
aware of prior incidents that had occurred on the property. These prior incidents gave rise to
factual issues that the jury must consider in determining whether the business owner should have
reasonably anticipated or foreseen the harm. Those facts are most like the facts at issue in this
case.
Here, it is undisputed that defendant knew about more than 100 vehicle incursions that
had occurred at its stores across the country, including one that occurred in 2009 at the store in
issue in Gardner, Kansas. While only two of these other vehicle incursions caused personal
injuries, defendant actually knew that vehicle incursions occur and that personal injury may
result from those incursions. Moreover, defendant has installed bollards in its newly constructed
stores for the past 15 years, and defendant concedes that safety is one of the reasons it installs

51

them. Based on these facts, this case falls squarely within the second category of cases described
by the California Court of Appeals in Jefferson. Following the holdings in that second category
of cases, the Court finds that the 2009 incident at the convenience store in issue in this case and
the “100 plus” vehicle incursions at defendant’s other stores give rise to factual issues that the
jury must consider and decide to determine whether defendant reasonably should have
anticipated or foreseen the harm occurring in this case.
The Court predicts that the Kansas Supreme Court would reach the same conclusion (that
the factual issues are for a jury’s determination and preclude summary judgment in this case)
when applying the “totality of the circumstances” test used under Kansas law. Seibert, 856 P.2d
at 1339. Under the “totality of the circumstances” test, “[t]he circumstances to be considered
must . . . have a direct relationship to the harm incurred in regard to foreseeability.” Id. The
“most significant factor” to consider in the totality of the circumstances analysis is “prior
incidents.” Id.; see also Nero, 861 P.2d at 780 (explaining that prior similar acts involving
invitees give a landowner actual or constructive notice of the foreseeability of criminal acts).
The Kansas Supreme Court has affirmed jury verdicts in favor of plaintiffs who were
injured on the premises of a business and where there was evidence of prior incidents that
allowed the jury to conclude that the business owner reasonably could foresee the injuries. See
Gould v. Taco Bell, 722 P.2d 511, 569 (Kan. 1986) (holding that there was evidence sufficient
for a jury to conclude defendant should have anticipated that plaintiff would be injured in a fight
when the attacker had been involved in a similar altercation approximately two weeks before and
defendant “had considered hiring security personnel because of a history of rowdyism on the
premises”); see also Kimple v. Foster, 469 P.2d 281, 285 (Kan. 1970) (holding that a jury could
conclude that defendant had knowledge of facts that should have placed him on notice that a

52

group of patrons may injure other guests in a nightclub because the group had been drinking
heavily, were loud and boisterous, and had started a prior fight). The Kansas cases that have
considered prior incidents when determining the foreseeability of harm to business invitees all
have involved prior episodes of criminal conduct. See, e.g., South ex rel. South v. McCarter, 119
P.3d 1, 15 (Kan. 2005) (holding that plaintiff’s injuries were not foreseeable where a mobile
home park did not have any specific information about an attacker’s past conduct and the actual
risk involved with having him on the property); Gragg v. Wichita State Univ., 934 P.2d 121, 135
(Kan. 1997) (deciding as a matter of law that it was not foreseeable under the totality of the
circumstances that a third party would shoot a patron at a fireworks show held at a university
stadium; although there had been another shooting at a different festival held on another part of
campus two years earlier, there had been no similar attacks or incidents at any of the fireworks
shows held in the previous 17 years); Weroha v. Craft, 951 P.2d 1308, 1314 (Kan. Ct. App.
1998) (plaintiff failed to present evidence under the totality of the circumstances that would have
made it foreseeable to an arcade owner that plaintiff would sustain injuries in an attack by
unknown assailants; there was no evidence of previous violent activity at the business, in the
area, in the arcade business, or with the alleged assailants).
While there is no evidence of any prior criminal conduct at the convenience store in
Gardner, Kansas, similar to the criminal conduct on the day of the accident,14 there is evidence of
prior similar conduct in the form of a driver mistaking the brake for the accelerator and driving
over the curb, onto the sidewalk, and into the storefront. There is also evidence of similar

14

That is, there is no evidence of prior criminal conduct similar to C.M. driving illegally to
the store without a valid driver’s license in violation of K.S.A. § 8-235 or Hartman encouraging
a child under 18 years of age to commit a traffic infraction in violation of K.S.A. §§ 215603(a)(2) and 21-6602(a)(1).
53

conduct in the form of accidental vehicle incursions at “100 plus” of defendant’s stores around
the country.
As the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 344 explains, a business owner may be liable for
injuries sustained by its patrons on its property if the business owner “know[s] or [has] reason to
know, from past experience, that there is a likelihood of conduct on the part of third persons in
general which is likely to endanger the safety of the visitor, even though he has no reason to
expect it on the part of any particular individual.” Restatement (Second) of Torts § 344 cmt. f
(1965) (emphasis added).15 Although defendant was not aware of the likelihood that C.M., as an
unlicensed and inexperienced driver, would drive into its parking lot, the Restatement does not
require that the business owner have a “reason to expect [the conduct] on the part of any
particular individual.” Rather, the business owner must know from past experience that there is
a likelihood of “conduct” by third persons “in general” which is likely to endanger the safety of
its patrons. There is nothing in the Restatement restricting this “conduct” to just “criminal
conduct.” Therefore, the Court looks to whether there is evidence of any similar conduct,
generally.
Based on the uncontroverted facts, a reasonable jury could conclude that defendant knew
or should have known “in general” of a likelihood of third persons engaging in conduct that
would cause a vehicle to jump the curb, enter the pedestrian walkway, and strike a business
patron. It is undisputed that defendant knew about more than 100 incidents of other vehicle
incursion accidents at its convenience stores around the country. Likewise, it is undisputed that
defendant knew about a vehicle incursion incident occurring at the same Gardner store in 2009
15

The Kansas Supreme Court has adopted this comment. See South ex. rel. South v.
McCarter, 119 P.3d 1, 12 (Kan. 2005) (citing the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 344 cmt. f).
Thus, the Court predicts that the Kansas Supreme Court would apply Restatement (Second) of
Torts § 344 cmt. f to the facts of this case.
54

as the result of a driver mistaking the accelerator for the brake16 and that defendant has installed
bollards for the past 15 years at all of its newly constructed stores for several reasons, including
safety.
Moreover, a reasonable jury could conclude that plaintiff’s injuries were foreseeable
based on the frequency of vehicle incursions. Plaintiff’s expert, Robert Reiter, opines that 40 to
50 vehicle incursion accidents occur in the United States on a daily basis and that 20 vehicle
incursion accidents occur every day at the 160,000 convenience stores located across this county.
Defendant uses these numbers, applies some additional assumptions (which, arguably, are not
ones made in the light most favorable to plaintiff), and suggests that the chances of a customer
committing a vehicle incursion at a convenience store is less than one in a million customers and
the chances of a vehicle incursion occurring a convenience store is only one in ten thousand
stores. Defendant also contends (using Reiter’s estimate that less than 10% of all vehicle
incursions cause personal injury to patrons inside and outside the store) that the chances of a
vehicle incursion resulting in personal injury is less than one in one hundred thousand per store
and less than one in ten million per customer. The Court concludes that these arguments are
suited for a jury’s evaluation and not ones that decide the question as a matter of law. In
addition, Reiter opines that there is a high potential for vehicle incursions with head-in parking
The Court is not persuaded by defendant’s argument that the 2009 accident was different
than the 2011 accident at issue in this case, and therefore defendant could not have foreseen the
accident in 2011. Defendant tries to distinguish the 2009 accident by arguing that the driver was
47 years old and had a valid driver’s license, unlike C.M. who was 14 years old and unlicensed.
The 2009 accident also did not result in any personal injuries to pedestrians because, fortunately,
the vehicle did not strike anyone in the pedestrian walkway in front of the store in contrast to
what occurred to plaintiff in this case. But these differences are negligible when compared to the
similarities of the accidents. In both instances, the driver mistook the brake for the accelerator,
drove the vehicle over the curb and onto the sidewalk, and struck the convenience store. The
Court does not agree that the fortunate outcome of the 2009 accident renders plaintiff’s injuries
in the 2011 accident unforeseeable as a matter of law. Rather, these similarities and differences
in the two accidents are factual issues for the jury to consider.
16

55

spaces in front of convenience stores because conveniences stores, by their nature, are speed
oriented and the turnover in parking is frequent. From these undisputed facts, a reasonable jury
could find that plaintiff’s injuries were foreseeable.
The Court is not persuaded by defendant’s reliance on Wayman v. Accor N. Am., Inc.,
251 P.3d 640 (Kan. Ct. App. 2011). In that case, plaintiff, a motel guest, was struck and injured
by a vehicle driven by the motel manager who was intoxicated. Id. at 642. The Kansas Court of
Appeals held that defendant was entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff’s negligence claims
because there was no evidence to indicate that the manager’s intoxicated driving was
foreseeable. Id. at 651. There was also no evidence that defendant knew the manager had a
propensity to become intoxicated, or that he had an alleged propensity to drink and drive in an
unsafe manner. Id. at 650. Therefore, the court affirmed summary judgment in favor of
defendant. Id. at 651. Defendant argues that Wayman is factually analogous because the
defendant in that case could not have foreseen the manager’s drinking and driving just like
defendant here could not have foreseen that C.M. would drive illegally to its convenience store
or that Hartman would allow C.M. to drive illegally. For the same reasons explained above, the
Court rejects defendant’s framing of the issue because it does not comport with Kansas law.
Kansas law does not direct the Court to consider whether defendant could have foreseen the
criminal actions of C.M. or Hartman; instead, Kansas law directs the Court to consider whether
defendant could have anticipated the general conduct at issue here, i.e. negligently driving over
the curb, onto the sidewalk, and into the building. Because there is evidence of a prior accident
at the subject store and “100 plus” accidents at defendant’s other convenience stores, the Court
determines that a reasonable jury could conclude that plaintiff’s injuries here were foreseeable.

56

In this case, defendant has a duty of reasonable care to protect its patrons from reasonably
foreseeable negligent acts. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, as the
Court must on a motion for summary judgment, the Court concludes that a reasonable jury could
find under the totality of circumstances that the harm to plaintiff was foreseeable to defendant.
See Nero, 861 P.2d at 779 (whether risk of harm is reasonably foreseeable is a question to be
determined by the trier of fact; it is only when reasonable persons could arrive at only one
conclusion that the court may determine the question as a matter of law). Therefore, the Court
must permit the trier of fact to resolve the question.
Finally, the Court is mindful that Kansas law cautions that “summary judgments are to be
granted with caution in negligence actions.” Smith v. Kansas Gas Serv. Co., 169 P.3d 1052,
1057 (Kan. 2007) (citing Fettke v. City of Wichita, 957 P.2d 409 (Kan. 1998)); see also Esquivel
v. Watters, 183 P.3d 847, 850 (Kan. 2008) (“summary judgment is seldom proper in negligence
cases”) (quotation omitted). Because there are genuine issues of material fact about the
foreseeability of plaintiff’s injuries, the Court concludes that it may not grant summary
judgment.
3. Superseding and Intervening Cause
Defendant also argues that it is entitled to summary judgment because its actions, even if
negligent, were not the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries. Rather, defendant contends that
the criminal actions of Hartman and C.M. and/or the negligent actions of Conner, Hartman,
C.M., and C.M.’s mother were the superseding and intervening cause of plaintiff’s injuries.
As explained above, the elements of a negligence claim under Kansas law are: (1) the
existence of a duty, (2) breach of that duty, (3) injury, and (4) a causal connection between the
duty breached and the injury suffered. Smith v. Kansas Gas Serv. Co., 169 P.3d 1052, 1057

57

(Kan. 2007) (quotations omitted). To establish causation under the fourth element, a plaintiff
must show that the breach of duty was “the actual and proximate cause of the injury.” Davey v.
Hedden, 920 P.2d 420, 429 (Kan. 1996) (citing Baker v. City of Garden City, 731 P.2d 278 (Kan.
1987)). “The proximate cause of an injury is the cause that in a natural and continuous sequence,
unbroken by any superceding cause, both produced the injury and was necessary for the injury.”
Hale v. Brown, 197 P.3d 438, 440 (Kan. 2008). “The injury must be the natural and probable
consequence of the wrongful act.” Id. (citing Yount v. Deibert, 147 P.3d 1065 (Kan. 2006)).
“Individuals are not responsible for all possible consequences of their negligence, but only those
consequences that are probable according to ordinary and usual experience.” Id. (citing Aguirre
v. Adams, 809 P.2d 8 (1991)).
The Kansas Supreme Court has explained that there are two categories of causation:
causation in fact and legal causation. Puckett v. Mt. Carmel Reg. Med. Ctr., 228 P.3d 1048, 1060
(Kan. 2010) (citations omitted). “To prove causation in fact, a plaintiff must prove a cause-andeffect relationship between a defendant’s conduct and the plaintiff’s loss by presenting sufficient
evidence from which a jury could conclude that more likely than not, but for the defendant’s
conduct, the plaintiff’s injuries would not have occurred.” Id. (citations omitted). “To prove
legal causation, the plaintiff must show that it was foreseeable that the defendant’s conduct
might create a risk of harm to the victim and that the result of that conduct and contributing
causes were foreseeable.” Id. (citation omitted). Whether the actions of a third person were an
“intervening cause” are part of the legal causation analysis and do not “‘come into play until
after causation in fact has been established.’” Id. (quoting Waste Mgmt. v. S. Cent. Bell, 15
S.W.3d 425, 432 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997)) (further citations omitted).

58

“An intervening cause is ‘one which actively operates in producing harm to another after
the actor’s negligent act or omission has been committed.’” Id. (quoting Restatement (Second)
of Torts § 441 (1964)). A defendant may avoid liability only if an intervening cause supersedes
the defendant’s negligence. Id. As the Kansas Supreme Court has explained, “the superseding
and intervening cause ‘component breaks the connection between the initial negligent act and the
harm caused.’” Id. (quoting Hale, 197 P.3d 438). In George v. Breising, 477 P.2d 983, 988
(Kan. 1970), the Kansas Supreme Court described intervening causation in this fashion:
Whether the negligent conduct of the original wrongdoer is to be insulated as a
matter of law by the intervening negligent act of another is determined by the test
of foreseeability. If the original actor should have reasonably foreseen and
anticipated the intervening act causing injury in the light of the attendant
circumstances, his act of negligence would be a proximate cause of the injury.
Foreseeability of some injury from an act or omission is a prerequisite to its being
a proximate cause of the injury for which recovery is sought. When negligence
appears merely to have brought about a condition of affairs or a situation in which
another and entirely independent and efficient agency intervenes to cause the
injury, the latter is to be deemed the direct and proximate cause and the former
only the indirect or remote cause.
Defendant argues that there is no evidence showing that it had knowledge of any
predisposition of Conner, Hartman, C.M., or C.M.’s mother to act negligently or criminally in
allowing C.M. to operate the Mercedes without a valid driver’s license. Defendant also relies on
statements made by plaintiff’s experts in their depositions where they conceded that plaintiff
would not have been injured if C.M., an unlicensed, untrained, and inexperienced driver, had not
been operating the vehicle on the day of the accident. Therefore, defendant argues that these
unforeseeable actions committed by third parties were the superseding and intervening cause of
plaintiff’s injuries which absolve defendant of any liability in this case.
Defendant’s argument is similar to one rejected by the Kansas Supreme Court in George
v. Breising, 477 P.2d 983, 988 (Kan. 1970). In that case, the defendant operated an automobile

59

garage and left the keys in the ignition of a vehicle that was being serviced at the business. Id. at
984–85. A third party stole the vehicle, and while he was driving it around town, he struck and
injured the plaintiff. Id. at 985. The defendant argued that even if he was negligent in leaving
the keys in the ignition, his actions were not the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.
Determining the causation issue, the court explained, “the issue is not whether it was foreseeable
that [the] vehicle would be stolen as [defendant] urges in his brief; rather, the inquiry is whether
the independent intervening act of negligence committed by [the third party thief] in driving the
stolen vehicle was reasonably foreseeable.” Id. at 988. Likewise, in this case, the issue is not
whether it was foreseeable that C.M. or Hartman would commit criminal actions or that Conner,
Hartman, C.M., or C.M.’s mother would act recklessly and allow C.M. to drive the vehicle.
Rather, the issue is whether the independent intervening act of C.M. negligently driving the
vehicle over the curb, onto the sidewalk, and into the building was foreseeable to defendant. For
the same reasons discussed above, the Court finds that a reasonable jury could reach differing
conclusions about whether it was foreseeable to defendant that one of its patrons would
negligently drive a vehicle over the curb, onto the sidewalk, and into plaintiff causing her injury.
Therefore, this factual issue must be determined by the jury, and the Court may not properly
decide it on summary judgment.
Defendant suggests that the facts of Davey v. Hedden, 920 P.2d 420 (Kan. 1996) are
“bizarrely analogous” to this case and require the Court to find that the actions of Conner,
Hartman, C.M. and/or C.M.’s mother were the proximate causes of plaintiff’s injuries. In Davey,
two parents left home on a vacation and allowed their two teenage sons, who had restricted
licenses, to drive a Mercedes to school and school related activities. Id. at 423. One of the sons
gave permission to Jason Davey to drive the Mercedes. Id. Davey and a passenger, Catherine

60

Farnsworth, were under the age of 16 and possessed restricted drivers’ licenses. Id. After
driving off in the Mercedes, Davey pulled over and let Farnsworth drive the vehicle. Id.
Farnsworth drove down an unfamiliar road, lost control of the vehicle, and hit a tree. Id. Davey
went through the windshield and suffered serious injuries. Id. Defending a negligence claim
brought by Davey, the parents argued that their actions were not the proximate cause of
plaintiff’s injuries. The Kansas Supreme Court noted that the record did not contain any
evidence that the parents knew of any propensity on the part of their sons to allow third parties to
drive the family’s vehicles. Id. at 430. Therefore, the Court held there was no evidence to
support an inference of foreseeability of the accident and injury that occurred. Id. Absent such
evidence, the negligence of Davey and Farnsworth “constitute[d] 100% of the intervening cause
and it [was] an independent intervening cause.” Id. (quotation omitted).
Conversely, in this case, there is evidence to support an inference that defendant could
have foreseen the injuries to plaintiff as a pedestrian standing on the sidewalk outside of its
convenience store. Defendant was aware of “100 plus” vehicle incursion accidents that had
occurred at its stores across the country, including one that occurred in 2009 at the convenience
store in Gardner, Kansas, which involved a driver negligently pressing the accelerator instead of
the brake, driving over the curb and onto the sidewalk, and striking the building. As the Kansas
Supreme Court explained in Davey, where “reasonable minds could differ” on the proximate
cause of plaintiff’s injuries, “summary judgment is not proper.” Davey, 920 P.2d at 430. From
these facts, reasonable minds could conclude that the actions of C.M., her mother, Hartman, and
Conner were an intervening cause plaintiff’s injuries. On the other hand, reasonable minds could
also conclude that these actions were a concurrent, proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries which

61

combined with defendant’s actions to harm plaintiff. Therefore, summary judgment is not
proper.
The Court is also mindful that “proximate cause is ordinarily a question of fact that is
reserved for the trier of fact.” Hale, 197 P.3d at 441 (citing Cullip v. Domann, 972 P.2d 776
(Kan. 1999)); see also Schmeck v. City of Shawnee, 651 P.2d 585, 598 (Kan. 1982) (citations
omitted) (“negligence, contributory negligence and proximate cause are all issues to be
determined by the jury”). Only “when all the evidence on which a party relies is undisputed and
susceptible of only one inference” does “the question of proximate cause become[ ] a question of
law.” Id. (citing Cullip, 972 P.2d 776). That is not the case here. Because there are questions of
fact about the foreseeability of the harm, the trier of fact must resolve the issue of proximate
cause. Consequently, the Court denies defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT plaintiff’s Motion to
Exclude or Limit the Testimony of Expert Richard D. Blomberg (Doc. 162) is granted in part and
denied in part.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT defendant’s Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony
(Doc. 166) is granted in part and denied in part.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment
(Doc. 164) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 8th day of July, 2014, at Topeka, Kansas.
s/ Daniel D. Crabtree
Daniel D. Crabtree
United States District Judge

62