Summary
The Delaware Supreme Court reversed summary judgment for Shoney's in a premises-liability case involving a plaintiff who tripped on raised landscape edging while cutting across a landscaped area. The court held that the common-sense proposition that people sometimes cut corners does not require expert testimony, and that the plaintiff could proceed to trial on her negligence claim.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether expert testimony was required to establish that pedestrians sometimes cut corners in order to take a more direct route.
- Whether the plaintiff's expert opinion regarding the raised landscape edging was admissible under Delaware Rule of Evidence 702 and the Daubert and Kumho reliability standards.
- Whether summary judgment was proper after exclusion of the expert testimony.
Holdings
- No. The fact that people sometimes cut corners is a matter of common knowledge and experience that does not require expert testimony.
- The expert testimony concerning the edging's status as a tripping defect was not properly excluded merely because the expert lacked scientific studies supporting the common-knowledge premise that people cut corners.
- Yes. Ward established a prima facie case sufficient to proceed to trial because the jury could determine from common knowledge that patrons might cut corners, while the expert testimony could address whether the edging was a tripping defect and whether walkway design should account for pedestrian habits.
Key quotations
“The basic fact that people cut corners, however, does not.” (817 A.2d at 803)
“Properly viewed, Fleisher's expert opinion relates only to the fact that designers should take into account pedestrian walking habits; and that, given people's tendency to cut corners, the landscape edging should have been low enough to avoid being a tripping hazard for those who took the short cut.” (817 A.2d at 803)
Factual background
Marian Ward walked from Shoney's Inn toward a newspaper vending machine outside Shoney's Appleby's restaurant. She attempted to take a shortcut across a landscaped area rather than follow the paved sidewalk, and she fell when her foot allegedly struck raised landscape edging approximately two inches above the adjacent sidewalk. Her engineering expert opined that the edging was a tripping hazard, but lacked studies or other authorities supporting the premise that pedestrians tend to cut corners.
Procedural history
Ward sued Shoney's for personal injuries allegedly caused by raised landscape edging near a restaurant walkway. The original trial judge denied summary judgment and preliminarily permitted Ward's expert to testify, but after reassignment the case was reviewed again. The new trial judge excluded the expert's testimony as unreliable and granted Shoney's summary judgment because the court concluded competent expert testimony was required to establish a prima facie negligence case. The Supreme Court of Delaware reversed and remanded.
Remand instructions
The matter was remanded for further action in accordance with the opinion. Jurisdiction was not retained.