Human Factors Expert Barred from Testifying on Whether Injury Was Foreseeable

Monserrate Caraballo (“Caraballo” or “Plaintiff”) has sued Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. (“Home Depot” or “Defendant”) under state common law tort for negligence, alleging that Defendant’s negligent display of boxed tile resulted in injuries to Plaintiff’s left eye.

Caraballo filed a motion to exclude certain testimony from Home Depot’s expert, Dr. Robert Rauschenberger.

Human Factors Expert Witness

Robert Rauschenberger is currently the Vice President, Director of Human Factors at J.S. Held. He has over 25 years of experience conducting research on topics of visual attention and distraction, the organization of perceptual information, product design, user experience, risk communication effectiveness, and consumer decision-making.

Also, Rauschenberger obtained his Ph.D. in cognitive psychology from The Johns Hopkins University, and for over two decades has conducted research on how humans process information.

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

Discussion by the Court

Caraballo argued (1) that Rauschenberger is unqualified to testify as an expert in this case because he does not have any demonstrable experience in “accidental construction or the biomechanics of strapped boxed tiles display, construction or movements,” (2) that his opinions regarding the “foreseeability” of Caraballo’s injury should be barred as they bear on the “‘ultimate issues’” of the case  (3) that his opinion is irrelevant under Federal Rule of Evidence 701 because it is “not based in science or fact,” and (4) and that “[a]ny evidence and/or testimony relating to an assertion that Plaintiff could and should have chosen a different method of accessing the boxed tiles to avoid the alleged incident contains speculation, is highly prejudicial, is not predicated on any fact and would mislead and confuse the jury,” in violation of Federal Rule of Evidence 403.

Robert Rauschenberger

To begin with, Rauschenberger has been recognized as a “human factors expert” under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 in past federal trials. Based on that, the Court has allowed him to testify in this case and offer expert opinions on how consumers like Caraballo may behave with or without proper warnings and instructions.

Rauschenberg, however, will not be permitted to offer testimony that provides legal conclusions. Whether Caraballo’s injury was “foreseeable” strays perilously close to one of the ultimate issues of this case: whether Caraballo’s injury was reasonably foreseeable by Home Depot.

The Court ruled that Rauschenberg’s first opinion—that, “[b]ased upon a lack of known prior similar incidents, the absence of scientific literature discussing the underlying mode of injury, and a dearth of even remotely related events in publicly injury databases . . . it was therefore appropriate [for Home Depot] not to provide warning against the alleged hazard of unintentionally punching oneself in the eye while attempting to pull merchandise off the display shelf using a packaging strap”—is relevant and admissible.

However, he will not be allowed to state that “the subject incident was not foreseeable by Home Depot.”

In Rauschenberg’s second and third opinions, he opined on how Caraballo “would have” behaved in the presence of warnings and the other options available to Caraballo. But drawing conclusions about what Caraballo would have done is speculative. At best, the Court held that Rauschenberg can opine on how “consumers” or “consumers like Caraballo,” generally behave, rather than speculating as to how Caraballo himself would have behaved.

Held

The Court granted in part and denied in part Caraballo’s motion in limine to exclude certain testimony by Dr. Robert Rauschenberger.

Key Takeaways:

• The Court recognized Rauschenberger as a qualified “human factors expert” under Rule 702 based on his prior testimony in federal trials.

• The Court allowed him to testify about how consumers like Caraballo may behave with or without warnings and instructions.

• The Court, however, prohibited Rauschenberger from testifying that the incident was not foreseeable by Home Depot.

• The Court rejected Rauschenberger’s attempt to speculate on how Caraballo specifically “would have” acted, limiting him to general opinions on how consumers in similar situations behave.

Case Details:

Case Caption:	Caraballo V. Home Depot U.S.A Inc
Docket Number:	3:21cv252
Court Name:	United States District Court, Connecticut
Order Date:	June 10, 2025