Opinion ID: 4512187
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Exclusion of Wayne’s Expert Opinion

Text: Under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, an expert opinion is admissible if (1) “the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data;” (2) “the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods;” and (3) “the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.” When determining the reliability of an expert’s opinion, a court examines the following four non-exclusive factors: (1) whether the expert’s theory or technique “can be (and has been) tested;” (2) “whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review and publication;” (3) “the known or potential rate of error;” and (4) “general acceptance.” Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 593–94 (1993). These factors are not exclusive or exhaustive and the court may tailor its inquiry to fit the particular facts of a case. Presley v. Lakewood Eng’g & Mfg. Co., 553 F.3d 638, 643 (8th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted). As the gatekeeper, the district court’s role is to discern “expert opinion evidence based on ‘good grounds’ from subjective speculation that masquerades as scientific knowledge.” Glastetter v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., 252 F.3d 986, 989 (8th Cir. 2001). -4- The district court excluded Wayne’s expert opinion that Ackerman’s fall was caused by black ice that would not have existed but for the birdbath in the asphalt. The court found that Wayne’s opinion would not assist the trier of fact for the following reasons: (1) Wayne was not qualified to offer an opinion on asphalt deterioration or birdbath creation; (2) Wayne’s “testing” (observing asphalt stains; rolling a volleyball; and driving through the lot after a rain shower) was not reliable and his methodology failed to meet Daubert standards; and (3) Wayne’s theory that he can tell how long a birdbath existed “by reading the stains of asphalt like the rings of a tree” was unsupported. Wayne’s expert opinion regarding the existence of a birdbath that caused black ice to form fails to comply with Daubert standards. It is indisputable that Wayne lacks academic qualifications so his ability to offer an expert opinion turns on his experience as a property manager as well as the bases for his opinion. While Wayne has broad experience in managing commercial property, his opinion is based on vague theorizing and amorphous general principles. Wayne’s first visit to the property occurred over two years after Ackerman fell. Despite his ultimate conclusion that Ackerman’s fall was caused by the presence of black ice forming in a birdbath, Wayne failed to take any photographs on that visit or any subsequent visit that would corroborate this theory. The photographs taken by Schmitt approximately 30 minutes after the accident do not show the presence of a birdbath-type depression in the asphalt. Neither Schmitt nor Ackerman noted any kind of depression, indentation, or defect in the asphalt. Lacking any evidence that a birdbath existed either at the time of the fall or when he visited the property over two years after the accident, Wayne asked the court to accept his ipse dixit that a birdbath existed at the time of Ackerman’s fall. In the absence of any record evidence that Wayne used reliable principles and methods or applied them reasonably to the facts of this case to form his opinion that Ackerman’s fall was caused by black ice forming in a birdbath, his opinion does not satisfy the Rule 702 standards for admissibility. The district court -5- did not abuse its considerable discretion in excluding Wayne’s expert opinion on causation.