Civil Engineering Expert Allowed to Opine on Walking Surface Safety

This premises liability action arises from Plaintiff’s allegation that he slipped and fell by a gas pump at the Costco gas station because of the combination of liquid and granular substance which was on the ground.

Defendant has filed a Daubert Motion, seeking to strike or limit the testimony of Plaintiff's expert, Andres F. Correa.

Civil Engineering Expert Witness

Andres Felipe Correa is a licensed professional engineer, licensed building inspector, and qualified stormwater inspector with substantial experience involving drainage, pedestrian walking surfaces, premises inspections, and code compliance.

Correa received his Bachelors of Science from The University of Florida, in Civil Engineering.

Want to know more about the challenges Andres Correa has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report.

Discussion by the Court

Defendant sought to exclude Correa from testifying at trial under Daubert and Rule 702, on the grounds that the opinions are unreliable and did not help the trier of fact. It argued that Correa's opinions are premised on speculation that there was a lack of positive drainage at the subject Costco gas station. Defendant contended that these opinions fail and should be stricken because the objective CCTV footage clearly demonstrates that there was no pooling of rainwater on the day of the incident, and only minimal tracked-in rainwater was present in the subject area.

Defendant identified the following five (5) opinions as those that will be offered by Correa in this case: (1) the incident area did not contain "positive drainage"; (2) due to the "lack of positive drainage," "water and contaminants were permitted to accumulate"; (3) the accumulation of water/contaminants could negate the slip resistant properties of the concrete ground; (4) Costco was aware the concrete could be hazardous/slippery; and (5) the hazardous conditions were not readily apparent to users at the time of the incident.

Defendant argued that Correa's methodology is unreliable, untested, and speculative because he did not conduct any reliable slip resistance or drainage testing at the subject Costco. Defendant argued that Correa failed to conduct any reliable testing of the positive/ negative drainage at Costco and that Correa also admitted he did not remain on scene for a long enough time to determine whether or not the standstill water was actually able to drain and was not sure what would happen in those areas past the fifteen minutes he was present.

Upon careful review of Defendant's challenges to Correa's proffered expert opinions, the Court disagrees with Defendant's characterizations of Correa's opinions as speculative. Rather, the opinions appear to be based upon reliable methodology, including a physical site inspection, visual and tactical examination, contemporaneous video and photographic evidence, witness testimony, observed drainage and surface conditions, specialized engineering and building inspector experience, and applicable codes and safety standards. Moreover, Correa is qualified to offer those opinions as an engineering expert, a Florida licensed professional engineer, licensed building inspector, and qualified stormwater inspector with over twenty-three (23) years of professional experience. Other courts in this have found Correa qualified to offer engineering opinions regarding walking surface safety.

Further, the Court found that Correa will be able to provide helpful, relevant testimony that will likely assist the jury in understanding these matters, which are "beyond the understanding of the average lay person." The Court found that Correa's testimony would help the jury. Correa's testimony regarding the applicable standards of care as to walkways is beyond the knowledge of average laypersons. Furthermore, his testimony about whether the subject area was unreasonably slippery when wet will likely assist the jury.

Moreover, the Court found that the proffered expert testimony will have a tendency not to confuse the jury, but rather to "logically advance material aspects of the case."

Finally, whether the conditions during Correa's inspection were sufficiently similar and whether additional testing should have been performed are matters affecting the weight of his opinions, not their admissibility. Defendant's criticisms of Correa's opinions may form the basis for "vigorous cross-examination and "presentation of contrary evidence" at trial.

Held

The Court denied the Defendant's Daubert motion to exclude and/or limit the testimony of Plaintiff's expert, Andres Correa.

Key Takeaway

Visual inspection and review of evidence by experienced engineer is sufficient for expert admissibility in Daubert challenges.

Case Details: