--- title: "Human Factors Expert Not Allowed to Opine on the Tile" meta: "og:description": "The human factors expert was barred from opining that the floor was not flush and even to the extent possible" "og:title": "Human Factors Expert Not Allowed to Opine on the Tile" author: "Expert Witness Profiler" description: "The human factors expert was barred from opining that the floor was not flush and even to the extent possible" --- # Human Factors Expert Not Allowed to Opine on the Tile Posted on April 21, 2026 by Expert Witness Profiler Plaintiff Rebecca Bell alleged that she fell while an invitee at the Hobby Lobby store in Daphne, Alabama. She filed suit against Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and Alex Mendoza (manager of the Daphne Hobby Lobby store) asserting causes of action for negligence, wantonness, and negligent/wanton hiring, training, supervision or retention. Plaintiff stepped on an uneven tile while shopping inside the Hobby Lobby store in Daphne, Alabama. She argued that the uneven floor tile caused her to fall. Plaintiff did not trip or slip. Rather, Plaintiff alleges she stepped “half on good tile, half on bad tile,” causing her foot to roll. The depression in the subject tile was not greater than 1/4″. Plaintiff proffered the testimony of Dr. [Ian Noy](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Ian-Noy/1549342) and an affidavit of [John Shepherd](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/John-Shepherd/1574227). Both Noy and Shepherd opined that the subject tile constituted a hazardous condition. Defendants filed a motion to exclude Noy’s testimony and argued that Shepherd’s affidavit should be disregarded as conclusory. ## **Human Factors Expert Witness** [Ian Yechiam Noy](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Ian-Noy/1549342) is immensely qualified as an expert in Human Factors and Ergonomics. He is a distinguished Human Factors and Ergonomics consultant and forensic expert with extensive background in innovative and applied safety research, industrial engineering, behavioral sciences, and science management. [Want to know more about the challenges Ian Noy has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/order/add?eId=1549342&pId=3). ## **Retail Store Expert Witness** [John R. Shepherd](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/John-Shepherd/1574227) has worked 40 years in the retail store industry, with 20 years at Walmart and 21 years at Delchamps grocery stores. Throughout his experience in the retail store industry, he was directly involved in developing and implementing policies and procedures relating to floor safety, customer safety and injury prevention. [Discover more cases with John Shepherd as an expert witness by ordering his comprehensive Expert Witness Profile report](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/order/add?eId=1574227&pId=3). ## **Discussion by the Court** ### **Ian Noy** Plaintiff retained Noy “to opine on the human factors contributions” to her injuries. Noy opined that the tile was a hazard “because it violated the industry best practice standard set forth in ASTM F-1637.” Noy’s opinion is tied to that standard. The standard mandates walkways be maintained as “flush and even to the extent possible.” Noy acknowledged that if a walkway is “as flush and even as possible,” the standard allows for up to a one quarter inch (1/4″) change in elevation. It is undisputed the subject walkway had no variation in elevation greater than a 1/4″. However, Noy contended the subject tile nevertheless violated the standard because the 1/4″ allowance applies only if the walkway is as “flush and even to the extent possible.” Noy opines the subject tile was not as “flush and even to the extent possible,” and therefore should have been “repaired.” Noy acknowledged that “flush and even to the extent possible” is a structural determination. He testified, “if it’s physically possible to make the floor flush and even, it should be done. If there was any structural or functional reason why there needs to be a change in elevation, then it has to be as small as possible.” However, Noy is not proffered as a structural expert. Furthermore, he never visited the Hobby Lobby store where Plaintiff fell. He has no knowledge of the construction of the floor or its substrate. He does not know what caused the depression in the subject tile, or when or how it developed. His opinion, though, that the floor should have been “repaired” and that the 1/4″ depression allowance is inapplicable is based on his belief that the floor was not “flush and even to the extent possible.” This belief is mere unsupported “_ipse dixit_.” The Court held that Noy is unqualified to opine that the floor was not “flush and even to the extent possible.” Therefore, he cannot opine the standard 1/4″ depression allowance is inapplicable. Noy’s opinion that “the depressed surface was a foreseeable hazard because it violated the industry best practice standard set forth in ASTM F-1637” is not permissible. ### **John Shepherd** Plaintiff also offered an affidavit of John Shepherd as evidence that the tile constituted a hazardous condition. Defendants argued that Shepherd’s affidavit is “conclusory” and cannot defeat summary judgment. The Court agreed, and found that Shepherd’s opinion suffered the same fatal defects as Noy’s. Shepherd would opine that the “uneven surface in the floor constitutes a fall hazard,” and that “not only should the tile be replaced but underneath the tile should have been replaced.” Like Noy, Shepherd is not proffered as a structural expert. He has experience relating to “floor safety, customer safety, and injury prevention.” However, he has no construction or structural expertise or experience. Neither did the record indicate he ever visited the Hobby Lobby store where Plaintiff fell. He had no knowledge of the construction of the floor or its “underneath” substrate, or whether or how it might be “replaced.” He has no knowledge of what caused the depression, or when or how it developed. The Court concluded that Shepherd is unqualified to opine the subject tile or its “underneath” should have been replaced. That, and his opinion the “uneven surface in the floor . . . constitutes a fall hazard” are mere conclusory statements that cannot satisfy Plaintiff’s burden to produce sufficient evidence of an “unreasonably” dangerous condition or hazard under Alabama law. His conclusory opinion is not based on any methodology. ## **Held** The Court granted Defendants’ motions to exclude the testimony of Dr. Ian Noy and John Shepherd. ## **Key Takeaway** Nothing in either _[Daubert](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/daubert_standard)_ or the Federal Rules of Evidence requires a district court to admit opinion evidence that is connected to existing data only by the _ipse dixit_ of the expert. ## **Case Details:** --- ## **You Might Also Like** ![Human Factors Expert Not Allowed to Opine on the Tile](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-21T191749.960.jpg) [**Human Factors Expert Not Allowed to Opine on the Tile**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/human-factors-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-the-tile/human-factors-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-the-tile)![Insurance Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Legal Duties](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-21T155751.487.jpg) [**Insurance Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Legal Duties**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/human-factors-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-the-tile/insurance-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-legal-duties)![Law And Legal Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Contract Formation](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-20T213123.718.jpg) [**Law And Legal Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Contract Formation**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/human-factors-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-the-tile/law-and-legal-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-contract-formation)![Economics Expert Was Not Allowed to Opine on Technical Difficulties](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-20T192020.223.jpg) [**Economics Expert Was Not Allowed to Opine on Technical Difficulties**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/human-factors-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-the-tile/economics-expert-was-not-allowed-to-opine-on-technical-difficulties)![Hospitality Expert Was Allowed to Opine on Guest Safety](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-20T153714.677.jpg) [**Hospitality Expert Was Allowed to Opine on Guest Safety**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/human-factors-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-the-tile/hospitality-expert-was-allowed-to-opine-on-guest-safety)