Civil Engineering Expert Witness’ Testimony Premised on a Coefficient of Friction Measurement Test Excluded
Posted on October 14, 2024 by Expert Witness Profiler
Plaintiff Migdalia Rodríguez filed suit against Defendants WV Vacation Business LLC d/b/a Hotel Vista Azul and Cooperativa de Seguros Múltiples under Puerto Rico’s general tort statute.
She claims that while at the WV she slipped and fell on artificial grass. The Plaintiff filed a motion to exclude Engineer Berlin Ng Cortiñas’ testimony because, she claims, it is unreliable, irrelevant and may mislead the trier of fact.
Civil Engineering Expert Witness
Berlin Ng Cortiñas is a civil and structural engineer, with 40 years of experience. During this time, his professional practice has been developed in following field of the engineering: structural analysis and design, construction, inspection and expert witness.
Discussion by the Court
The Court finds that Eng. Ng Cortiñas’ educational background and work experience qualify him as an expert in the field of structural and civil engineering. So, the first factor is satisfied. The Court also understands that his testimony would be based upon sufficient facts, reliable principles, and methods. He therefore also satisfies the second factor.
However, the Court does not find that Eng. Ng Cortiñas’ testimony will assist the trier of fact because his testimony is premised on a coefficient of friction measurement tests performed under conditions that do not represent the conditions at the time of the alleged incident.
Plaintiff challenged Eng. Ng Cortiñas’ expert testimony because the basis for his testimony would be his expert report, which relied on a coefficient of friction test performed on dry artificial grass which did not reflect the conditions of the artificial grass at the time of the alleged incident. After all, when Plaintiff fell, the artificial grass was wet, not dry.
A test performed on dry artificial grass is not helpful to the trier of fact
The parties do not contest that the artificial grass was wet at the time of the incident. Therefore, the Court does not see how a test performed on dry artificial grass will help the trier of fact since the test does not recreate the conditions at the time of the alleged incident. Saying that the coefficient of friction complied with the relevant standards (whichever those may be) when the artificial grass was dry is meaningless since the artificial grass was wet at the time of the incident at issue.
Had Eng. Ng Cortiñas also performed a coefficient of friction test on wet artificial grass so that the jury could have had the opportunity to consider that test vis-à-vis the one performed on dry grass, his testimony could have been helpful to the jury. But alas, that was not done. Accordingly, the Court found that Eng. Ng Cortiñas’ testimony should be excluded under Rule 702 because it will not assist the jury and under Rule 403 because its probative value could be outweighed by a danger of misleading and confusing the jury with a test that does not replicate the conditions of the artificial grass at the time of the incident and therefore cannot show whether there was compliance with relevant standards.
Held
The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to exclude Defendants’ expert witness, Eng. Berlin Ng Cortiñas.
Key Takeaway:
Plaintiff challenged Eng. Ng Cortiñas’ expert testimony because the basis for his testimony would be his expert report, which relies on a coefficient of friction test performed on dry artificial grass which did not reflect the conditions of the artificial grass at the time of the alleged incident. After all, when Plaintiff fell, the artificial grass was wet, not dry. Had Eng. Ng Cortiñas also performed a coefficient of friction test on wet artificial grass so that the jury could have had the opportunity to consider that test vis-à-vis the one performed on dry grass, his testimony could have been helpful to the jury. But alas, that was not done.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Rodriguez V. Wv Vacation Business Llc D/B/A Hotel Vista Azul Et Al |
| Docket Number: | 3:22cv1430 |
| Court: | United States District Court, Puerto Rico |
| Order Date: | September 30, 2024 |
