Rodriguez et al v. GPI MS-N, Inc. et al

Filing 69

ORDER granting 50 Motion to Exclude Defendant's Expert Witness. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker on October 6, 2016 (King, Steve)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
SOUTHERN DIVISION

DANIELLE RODRIGUEZ and
CHUCK RODRIGUEZ
VERSUS
GPI MS-N, INC. d/b/a PAT PECK NISSAN et al

PLAINTIFFS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15CV255-RHW
DEFENDANTS

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY
Before the Court is Plaintiffs' motion to exclude Defendant's expert witness. Doc. [50].
In their complaint Plaintiffs allege that they were on Defendant's property as business invitees
while shopping for an automobile. Plaintiffs further allege that while walking across a grassy
median Danielle Rodriguez stepped into a hole and injured her ankle. According to Plaintiffs,
the hole was concealed from view because of the manner in which the grass was maintained.
Plaintiffs allege that Defendant's negligence in maintaining a dangerous condition on its property
and failing to warn Plaintiffs of the alleged dangerous condition caused Mrs. Rodriguez's injury.
Defendant has designated Christopher A. Williams as a liability expert. Williams is an
expert in the field of engineering. In his report, Williams opines that the grassy median is a
landscape island, designed and constructed to standard construction practices, consistent with site
development along the Mississippi Gulf Coast, and consistent with other landscape islands in the
area. Doc. [50-1]. Williams also opined that the landscape island has no design deficiencies and
is structurally sound and intact. Id. Because the landscape island was a landscape feature, he
concludes that it "was not a dangerous condition as a multitude of paved areas were available for
pedestrians to use." Id. He further states that the landscape island is a green space feature that is
not intended as a pedestrian access route. Id.

Pursuant to Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), the trial
judge maintains a gatekeeping function to ensure that any and all scientific testimony is not only
relevant but reliable. See Carlson v. Bioremedi Therapeutic Systems, Inc., 822 F.3d 194, 199
(5th Cir. 2016). "To trigger a Daubert inquiry, an expert's testimony, or its factual basis, data,
principles, methods, or their application, must be called sufficiently into question." Id. (citations
and internal quotations omitted). District courts are tasked with making a preliminary
assessment of whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically
valid and whether the reasoning or methodology properly can be applied to the facts in issue. Id.
The Daubert inquiry insures that the proferred evidence is both reliable and relevant. Knight v.
Kirby Inland Marine, Inc., 482 F.3d 347, 352 (5th Cir. 2007).
Plaintiff does not dispute Williams' qualifications as an engineer. Rather, the main thrust
of Plaintiff's motion is that the opinions offered by Williams are not relevant to the facts at issue.
In a Daubert inquiry, "relevance" depends on whether the expert's reasoning or methodology
properly can be applied to the facts in issue. Knight, 482 F.3d at 352. Accordingly, the Court
must assess whether Williams' opinions are relevant to the issue of whether there was an
unreasonably dangerous condition on Defendant's property.
Whether the landscape island, in its role or function as a landscape island, was properly
designed or contained any structural deficiencies is not relevant to the facts at issue. Plaintiffs do
not allege any inherent design or structural defects as the basis of their negligence claim. Rather,
Plaintiffs allege that there was a concealed hazard contained within the landscape island that
resulted in Mrs. Rodriguez's injury when she used the landscape island as a pedestrian access
route. Williams offers no opinion about the depression or hole that allegedly caused Mrs.
2

Rodriguez's fall and injury. He merely concludes that because there were other access routes
available to Plaintiffs the landscape island was not unreasonably dangerous.
Williams' opinion that the landscape island was not designed or intended for pedestrian
use presents a closer question; however, the Court finds that the Williams' opinion misses the
point. Whether the landscape island was designed or intended for pedestrian use is irrelevant if
the facts demonstrate that in practice it was used as a pedestrian access route. Whether the
landscape island was in fact used by car shoppers, such as the Mrs. Rodriguez, on Defendant's
property and whether Defendant was aware that car shoppers used the landscape island as a
pedestrian access route are fact questions that do not require the testimony of an engineering
expert. These matters are within the understanding of an average person and do not require
scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge. See United States v. Moore, 997 F.2d 55,
57 (5th Cir. 1993). The Court finds that Williams' testimony regarding the design, construction,
and function of the landscape island are of questionable relevance at best and that his testimony
would be more likely to confuse the issues than to help the jury in determining the fact questions
at issue.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs' [50] Motion to
Exclude the Testimony of Christopher A. Williams is GRANTED.
SO ORDERED, this the 6th day of October, 2016.
/s/

Robert H. Walker

ROBERT H. WALKER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3