--- title: "Architecture Expert Not Allowed to Opine on the Safety of Retail Escalators" meta: "og:description": "The architecture expert lacked technical knowledge of the appropriate and relevant standards to maintain escalators" "og:title": "Architecture Expert Not Allowed to Opine on the Safety of Retail Escalators" author: "Expert Witness Profiler" description: "The architecture expert lacked technical knowledge of the appropriate and relevant standards to maintain escalators" --- # Architecture Expert Not Allowed to Opine on the Safety of Retail Escalators Posted on April 8, 2026 by Expert Witness Profiler Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc. (“DSG”) operated a retail location in Lyndhurst, Ohio. After the lone up-down escalator in the Lyndhurst Store stopped working, it was not barricaded though the escalator remained non-operational and stationery. Tiffiney Jones contended that she felt a sharp pain in her toe while climbing the stationary escalator and had stepped on a metal wire located onthe escalator steps, which punctured her sandal and sock. ## **Architecture Expert Witness** [Richard L. Zimmerman](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Richard-Zimmerman/1553125) is currently a licensed, registered professional architect in the State of Ohio, and has been so continuously from 1977 to the present. He has reviewed and assessed compliance of a wide variety of buildings and sites with local and state building codes and ordinances, and the norms of accepted and reliable architectural, human factors, engineering, construction, maintenance, and safety industry principles, methods and practices. [Fortify your strategy by reviewing a Challenge Study detailing grounds for excluding Richard Zimmerman’s expert testimony](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/order/add?eId=1553125&pId=3). ## **Discussion by the Court** ### **A. Zimmerman is not Qualified to Give Expert Testimony** DSG argued that Zimmerman’s education and experience demonstrated that he is a qualified architect, but an expert’s status as a qualified architect does not necessarily mean that he can testify on the “retail maintenance of escalators, which is the issue in this case.” DSG asserted that Zimmerman’s conclusions that DSG violated the Ohio Revised Code, Ohio Building Code, Elevator Code, and Escalator Code cannot be made without knowledge of the retail standards for maintaining escalators. The Court agreed with DSG and found that Zimmerman is not qualified to testify on commercial escalator maintenance and safety. Zimmerman’s qualifications are related to his status as a registered architect and his experience with Ohio Codes, retail locations of escalators, and pedestrian traffic flow. His experiences as an architect did not provide a foundation for specialized knowledge on the safety, maintenance, and structural integrity of retail escalators. So, without technical or specialized knowledge of the appropriate and relevant standards to maintain escalators, Zimmerman was unqualified to opine on DSG’s adherence to the standard of care to maintain the escalator. ### **B. Zimmerman’s Conclusions Are not a Product of Reliable Methods** In the methodology’s first step, Zimmerman conducted a fact-finding inquiry by reading the incident report, depositions, and DSG’s internal policies. Zimmerman also reviewed photographs and video surveillance. Notably absent from this factual basis examination are visits to the Lyndhurst Store, inspections of the disputed escalator, modeling, or testing of the escalator. In his second step, Zimmerman reviewed and identified relevant safety standards and provisions of the Ohio Code, which required no data collection, testing, or analysis. Finally, the last step in Zimmerman’s methodology simply applied the facts established in the first step to the various Code provisions identified in the second step. From this application, Zimmerman arrived at the conclusion that DSG failed to maintain a safe premises because Plaintiff attests that there was a sharp object on the escalator. This is a significant analytical jump for Zimmerman to make, and he did not stick the landing. DSG contended that Zimmerman’s failure to inspect the Lyndhurst Store, examine the escalator, or test Plaintiff’s footwear resulted in untested and unsupported conclusions. The Court agreed with DSG and found that Zimmerman’s testimony is not based on reliable procedures. ### **C. Zimmerman’s Opinions Will Not Assist the Trier of Fact** DSG contended that Zimmerman’s testimony contains no new perspectives to assist the jury because his testimony was based on a simple identification of relevant code language and application to readily available documents, which the jury could do themselves. Consistent with the above analysis, the Court found that Zimmerman’s testimony would not assist the trier of fact in resolving this litigation. ## **Held** The Court granted DSG’s motion to exclude the testimony of Richard L. Zimmerman. ## **Key Takeaway** Expert opinions that are not based on site-specific data or a generally accepted modeling but are based on anecdotal evidence with improper extrapolations do not comply with [Rule 702](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_702#:~:text=Rule%20702%20sets%20forth%20the,is%20a%20relatively%20narrow%20inquiry.) requirements. Aside from gathering facts and identifying relevant Code provisions, Zimmerman failed to provide a basis for his conclusions that address where the sharp object was located on the escalator, if the object was caused by DSG’s malfeasance, and whether the sharp object caused Plaintiff’s injuries. ## **Case Details:** --- ## **You Might Also Like** ![Chemical Engineering Expert Allowed to Opine on Railcar Switching](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-08T195023.873.jpg) [**Chemical Engineering Expert Allowed to Opine on Railcar Switching**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/architecture-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-the-safety-of-retail-escalators/chemical-engineering-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-railcar-switching)![Industrial Hygiene Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Falling Debris](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-08T175126.051.jpg) [**Industrial Hygiene Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Falling Debris**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/architecture-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-the-safety-of-retail-escalators/industrial-hygiene-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-falling-debris)![Architecture Expert Not Allowed to Opine on the Safety of Retail Escalators](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-08T143944.585-1.jpg) [**Architecture Expert Not Allowed to Opine on the Safety of Retail Escalators**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/architecture-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-the-safety-of-retail-escalators/architecture-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-the-safety-of-retail-escalators)![Insurance Expert Not Allowed to Opine on the Cause of Death](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-07T201226.004.jpg) [**Insurance Expert Not Allowed to Opine on the Cause of Death**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/architecture-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-the-safety-of-retail-escalators/insurance-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-the-cause-of-death)![Animal Behavior Expert Was Not Allowed to Opine on Drug Detection Dogs](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-07T175803.497.jpg) [**Animal Behavior Expert Was Not Allowed to Opine on Drug Detection Dogs**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/architecture-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-the-safety-of-retail-escalators/animal-behavior-expert-was-not-allowed-to-opine-on-drug-detection-dogs)