In trial today we are faced with more and more "so-called" expert opinions. Unfortunately, the expert's opinion is no better than the facts upon which it is based. In this high stakes slip an fall case on behalf of a defense client, I brought a Motion In Limine to limit or preclude a liability safety expert from opining that a particular walking surface was "dangerous" because "oil or some other contaminant must have been present." The prolific expert, Brad Avrit, P.E., was essentially testifying that the plaintiff would not have fallen unless some slippery substance was present. That is a round about way of arguing "res ipsa loquitur" which is not permissible in a slip and fall case. There was a complete absence of liability evidence---no one saw "oil or other contaminant", including the plaintiff herself. There was no after acquired evidence such as oil on clothing or a visable skid or scuff mark. The plaintiff was simply using an expert for an improper purpose---to create evidence where none existed. This is a classic example of the improper foundation for an expert opinion.
Firefox recommends the PDF Plugin for Mac OS X for viewing PDF documents in your browser.
We can also show you Legal Updates using the Google Viewer; however, you will need to be logged into Google Docs to view them.
Please choose one of the above to proceed!
LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.