NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL

U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_____________ N os . 10- 1643, 10- 1644

_____________ L E V O N E B U T T S, i ndi vi dual l yand as E xecutr i x o f th e E s ta te o f

G le n R a yB u tts , d e c e a s e d , v. LLO Y D W EI SZ; G EO RG I A W EI SZ

L evo ne B utt s, A ppel l ant

_______ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 2- 07- cv- 01657) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le J o yF lo w e rs C o n ti

_______ A r gued D ece m ber15, 2010 B efore: S L O V ITE R , G R E E N A W A Y , JR . , and G R E E N B E R G , C i rcui tJudg es. ( Fi l ed: D ece m ber28, 2010)

______ D om i ni k R os t ocki ( A r gued) E r i c G . Z aj ac Z aj ac & A r i as Phi l adel phi a, PA l 9l 03 A t t orney s forA ppel l ant C . L eon Sherm an ( A r gued) G o ld b e rg , K a m in & G a rv in Pi t t s bur gh, PA l 52191 T he D i s tr i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on bas ed on the di ver s i tyof part i es pur s uantt o 28

U . S. C . § 1332. T hi s courthas j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. 2 A t t orneyforA ppel l ee

_______ OP I NI ON

______ S L O V IT E R , C i r cui tJudge . L evone But t s appea l s fr om the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or der s l i m i t i ng the t es t i m onyof her e x p e rt w itn e ss a n d g ra n tin g su m m a ryju d g m e n t in f a v o r o f M r. an d M rs. W e isz . W e w ill 1 a f f i r m. T h is s u it res u lts f

ro m a sa d e v e n t o c c u rrin g w h e n M r. an d M rs. B u tts tra v e lled to the home of t hei rgood fr i ends , the W ei s zes . D ur i ng thatvi s i t , M r . B ut t s di ed fr om bl unt h e a d tr a u m a a f

t e rf a l l i n g d o w n th e b a s e m e n ts t a i rw e l l i n th e h o m e o f A p p e l l e e s L l o yd and G eor gi a W ei s z. N o one s aw B ut t s fal l . H i s w i dow , the exe cutr i x of hi s es t at e, fi l ed s ui tagai ns tthe W ei s zes pur s uantt o Penns y l vani a’ s W r ongful D eath A ct , the Sur vi val A ct , and un der the co m m on l aw theo ryof n egli gen ti nfli ct i on of em oti on al dis tres s. M rs . B ut t s r et ai ned an e xpertw ho fi l ed a r eportand ther eaf t ert es t i fi ed athi s depos i t i on o p in in g th a t d im lig h tin g c o n d itio n s a n d a d a n g e ro u s s in g le s te p c a u s e d M r. B u tts to f a ll. T he W ei s zes m oved t o pr ecl ude cons i der at i on of thatt es t i m ony , ar gui ng thati tw as s pecul at i ve and l acke d a r eas onabl e bas i s as r equi r ed byR ul e 702 of the Feder al R ul es of E vi dence . T he D i s tr i ctC our tagr eed. I tperm i t t ed the expe r tt o opi ne “r egar di ng a3

n o rm a l p e rso n ’s g a it, . . . tha t a s in g le s tep is d a n g e ro u s, th a t a p e rso n w a lk in g m ig h t trip o v e ra d a n g e r o u s s i n g l e s t e p , a n d th a ts u c h a tr i p c o u l d l e a d t o a f a l l . ” Ap p . a t3 8 6 . On o n e o f th e is s u e s b e f

o re u s , th e C o u rt p re c lu d e d th e e x p e rt ’s o p in io n a s to c a u s a tio n . Subse quent l y , the W ei s zes fi l ed a mot i on fors um m aryj udgm enton the i s s ue of caus at i on, ar gui ng thatM r s . B ut t s had fa i l ed t o pr es entanyevi dence thatthe l i ght i ng condi t i ons ors i ngl e s t ep ca us ed M r . B ut t s t o fal l . T he D i s tr i ctC our tagr eed on thi s i s s ue al s o, fi ndi ng thatM r . B utt s “coul d have f al l en forr eas ons otherthan” the negl i gence of the def endant s . A pp. at630. T he C our tgr ant ed the mot i on of M r . and M r s . W ei s z for s um m aryj udgm enton caus at i on and di s m i s s ed the ca s e bec aus e thati s s ue w as dis po si t i ve. M rs . B utt s appea l s. W e r evi ew an or derl i m i t i ng the t es t i m onyof an e xpertw i tnes s foran abus e of d is c re tio n . See G en. E l ec. C o. v. Joi ner , 522 U . S. 136, 138- 39 ( 1997) ( abus e of di s cr et i on forevi dent i aryrul i ngs ) . W e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overa di s tr i ctcourt ’ s gr antof s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. C i t y of E r i e v. G uar . N

at ’ lI ns . C o. , 1 0 9 F . 3 d 1 5 6 , 1 5 9 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). W e fi nd no abus e of di s cr et i on i n the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or derl i m i t i ng the t es t i m ony of the expe r tr et ai ned byM r s . B ut t s . R ul e 702 r equi r es thatexpertt es t i m onybe bas ed on “s uffi ci entfac t s ordat a” a nd be “the pr oductof r el i abl e pr i nci pl es and met hods . ” The w or d “r el i abl e” c onnot es an evi dent i arys t andar d “l ow erthan the mer i t s of corr ectnes s . ” In re P a o li R .R . Y

a rdP C B L iti g ., 3 5 F .3 d 7 1 7 , 7 4 4 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 4 ).4

A s the D istri ct C o u rtrec o g n ized , the e x p ert’s t esti m o n yas to the c au se o f M r. B ut t s ’ fal l w as s pecul at i ve and unr el i abl e bec aus e no one w i tnes s ed the fa l l . T he e x iste n c e o f

d im lig h tin g c o n d iti o n s a n d th e a lleg e d lyd a n g e ro u s s in g le s tep d o e s n o t, i n and of i t s el f, r eas onabl ys ugges tthatthe fa l l w as caus ed bythe negl i gence of M r . and M rs . W e is z . See Fedor cz yk v . C ar i bbean C r uis e Li nes , Ltd. , 8 2 F . 3 d 6 9 , 7 5 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 6 ) (“ T h e p o ss ib ili tyo f th e e x iste n c e o f

a n e v e n t d o e s n o t ten d to p ro v e its p ro b a b ili ty .”); H

am i lv. B as hl i ne , 3 9 2 A . 2 d 1 2 8 0 , 1 2 8 8 n . 9 (P a. 19 7 9 ) (“A m ere p o ssibil ityo f . . . ca u sati o n is no t eno u g h ; and w h en the m att er rem ains o n e o f p u re s pecul at i on and conj ectur e, orthe pr obabi l i t i es ar e atbes tevenl ybal ance d, i tbecomes t he dutyof the courtt o di r ecta ver di ctforthe def endant . ”) ( quot at i ons om i t t ed) . T he D i s tr i ct C o u r tc o rr e c t l y l i m i t e d th e e x p e r t ’ s t e s t i m o n y. N o r d o w e f

in d a n ye rro r in th e D istric t C o u rt’s g ra n t o f su m m a ryju d g m e n t in favo r of M r. and M rs . W ei sz. T o est abli sh neg l i gen ce i n P enn sy l van i a, a plai nti ff m ust demonstr at e: ( 1) the def endantow ed a dutyof ca r e t o the pl ai nt i ff, ( 2) the def endant br eac hed thatduty , ( 3) the br eac h r es ul t ed i n i nj uryt o the pl ai nt i ff, and ( 4) the pl ai nt i ff s u f f e re d d a m a g e . Mar t i n v. E vans , 7 1 1 A .2 d 4 5 8 , 4 6 1 (P a . 1 9 9 8 ). S u m m a ryju d g m e n t is a p p ro p ria te w h e re th e re is n o g e n u in e iss u e o f m a ter ial f

a c t an d th e m o v in g p a rtyis e n title d to ju d g m e n t a s a m a tte r o f la w . F e d . R . C iv . P . 5 6 (c ). T h e re w a s n o g e n u in e iss u e o f m a ter ial f

a c t as to c a u sa tio n b e c a u se M rs. B u tts fai l ed t o pr es entanyevi dence of the ca us e of M r . B ut t s ’ fal l otherthan the pr ecl uded te s tim o n yo f

h e r e x p e rt . S e e C u th b e rt v . C ity o f P h ila d e lp h ia , 209 A . 2d 261, 263- 64 ( Pa.5

1965) ( “i ti s notnece s s arythatpl ai nt i ff pr ove w i th m athemat i cal exac tnes s thatthe acc i dentcoul d onl yhave be en ca us ed i n one mannert o the exc l us i on of al l other pos s i bi l i t i es , buthe mustel i m i nat e thos e othercaus es , i f any , as w er e fa i r l ys ugges t ed by the e v iden ce ”) (cit ati o n s o m itted). T h e inf ere n ce that M r. B u tt s fe ll b ec au se th ere w ere d im lig h tin g c o n d iti o n s a n d a n a lleg e d lyd a n g e ro u s s in g le s tep w a s n o t an a p p ro p ria te in f e re n c e th a t th e ju ry c o u ld d ra w o r s h o u ld h a v e b e e n g iv e n th e o p p o rt u n ity to d ra w . C f. Fedor cz yk , 8 2 F .3 d a t 7 5 -7 6 . A n d e v e n if it w e re a n a p p ro p ria te in f e re n c e , M rs. B u tts f a iled to e sta b lish th a t M r. an d M rs. W e isz b re a c h e d a d u tyth e yo w e d to M r. B u tts r egar di ng the s i ngl e s t ep. T heydi d notbr eac h anydutybeca us e M r . B ut t s had su c c e ss f u llyn a v ig a ted th a t ste p n u m e ro u s tim e s in th e h o u rs p re c e d in g h is f a ll. R os s i no v. Kovacs , 7 1 8 A .2 d 7 5 5 , 7 5 7 (P a . 1 9 9 8 ) (lia b ili tya ttac h e s if p o ss e ss o r o f

lan d “ sh o u ld expec tthat[the l i cens ees ] w i l l notdi s coverorr eal i ze the dange r ” and “ the l i cens ees do notknow orhave r eas on t o know of the condi t i on and the r i s k i nvol ved”) ( ci t i ng R es t at ement( Second) of Tort s § 342) . T he D i s tr i ctC our tdi d noterri n gr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof M r . and M r s . W ei s z. A c c o rd in g ly , w e w ill a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.