Architecture Expert’s Testimony Regarding the Mat’s Condition Excluded

In December 2022, Carole Daniel (“Ms. Daniel”) tripped on a floor mat and fell inside a Phenix City, Alabama Dollar General retail store (“Dollar General”). Ms. Daniel suffered injuries and later sued Dolgencorp, LLC (“Dolgencorp”), the corporate entity operating the Dollar General. On June 15, 2024, Ms. Daniel passed away. Ms. Daniel’s husband, Ralph Daniel (“Mr. Daniel”), as Personal Representative of the Estate of Carole Daniel, was substituted as the proper Plaintiff in this action.

Dolgencorp filed a motion to exclude the expert testimony of Mark E. Williams, which is opposed by Mr. Daniel.

Architecture Expert Witness

Mark Elan Williams is an Alabama licensed architect, with more than thirty years of experience. He is licensed in multiple states throughout the Southeast and is certified by the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards.

To learn about other cases where Mark E. Williams has been involved as an expert witness, order an Expert Witness Profile report.

Discussion by the Court

To begin with, Williams reviewed several pieces of evidence, in forming his expert opinion, including: (1) December 2, 2022 surveillance footage of Ms. Daniel’s fall; (2) the pertinent Customer Incident Report; (3) Dolgencorp’s “Safety Orientation Training Module” ; (4) industry standards; (5) Dolgencorp’s Standard Operating Procedure (“SOP”) Manual; and (6) five January 31, 2023 photographs taken by Ms. Daniel’s sister, Becky Coreno (“Ms. Coreno”). He did not personally examine the specific mat involved in Daniel’s fall, but noted he was familiar with the mat’s manufacturer and its “‘waffle’ pattern of raised squares.”

Williams concluded, among other things, that the floor mat was a dangerous tripping hazard because: (1) it was “loose-laid” and had raised edges, which caused Ms. Daniel to trip and (2) it was improperly “secured down.” Moreover. Williams added that the “hazards associated with loose-laid floor mats are well documented and have been widely known for many years.”

In other words, his affidavit concluded that Dolgencorp “violated the standard of care for property maintenance, and created the dangerous condition that caused Ms. Daniel’s fall and injury.”

Basically, Williams offered expert testimony that Dolgencorp’s floor mat was a dangerous tripping hazard that ultimately caused Daniel to trip and fall.

Assist the Trier of Fact

In its role as gatekeeper, the Court is not convinced that Williams’ expert testimony regarding the mat’s condition will assist the jury, considering that his testimony relied on the video footage of Ms. Daniel’s fall.

The Court found “after reviewing the record evidence, especially the surveillance video . . . that a genuine dispute of material fact exists regarding the condition of the mat, such that a reasonable jury could find in Mr. Daniel’s favor.” However, the Court reached this conclusion without considering Williams’ expert report.

Moreover, Williams’ opinions could confuse the jury. His expert report found “the failure of Dollar General to provide a floor mat heavy enough not to move or properly secure the mat in place, violates the standard of care for property maintenance, and created the dangerous condition that caused Ms. Daniel’s fall and injury.” The Court held that Williams’ discussion of “standard of care” would at the very least confuse the jury, as “a witness may not testify to the legal implications of conduct; the Court must be the jury’s only source of law.” 

Held

The Court granted Dolgencorp’s motion to exclude Mark Williams’ testimony.

Key Takeaway:

Daniel failed to show that Williams’ testimony would satisfy Daubert‘s helpfulness prong. The parties’ dispute in this case while important—is simple—whether Ms. Daniel fell because the floor mat “was in a worn condition.” Jurors are capable of using common sense when it evaluates the floor mat’s condition and placement in the surveillance video. 

Case Details:

Case Caption:	Daniel V. Dolgencorp, LLC
Docket Number:	3:23cv135
Court Name:	United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Eastern Division
Order Date:	August 22, 2025