UNPUBLISHED
ORDER
ORDER
Online
Reference: FLWFED 2443CAST
Reference: FLWFED 2443CAST
Torts—Premises
liability—Slip and fall—Record evidence was sufficient to support verdict for
plaintiff—No abuse of discretion in excluding expert’s opinion, given expert’s
broad lack of knowledge of background and underpinning information on which
expert relied
liability—Slip and fall—Record evidence was sufficient to support verdict for
plaintiff—No abuse of discretion in excluding expert’s opinion, given expert’s
broad lack of knowledge of background and underpinning information on which
expert relied
HEATHER CASTELLANOS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TARGET
CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant. 11th Circuit. Case No. 13-10810. June 17,
2014. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
(No. 0:11-cv-62467-KMW). Counsel: Andrew A. Harris and Adam J. Richardson,
Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A., West Palm Beach; Jason D. Weisser, Shuler,
Halvorson, Weisser & Zoeller, P.A., West Palm Beach; and Glen B. Levine, Law
Offices of Anidjar & Levine, P.A., Ft. Lauderdale, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Carlton A. Bober and Nicolette John, Vernis & Bowling of Broward, P.A.,
Hollywood, for Defendant-Appellant.
CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant. 11th Circuit. Case No. 13-10810. June 17,
2014. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
(No. 0:11-cv-62467-KMW). Counsel: Andrew A. Harris and Adam J. Richardson,
Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A., West Palm Beach; Jason D. Weisser, Shuler,
Halvorson, Weisser & Zoeller, P.A., West Palm Beach; and Glen B. Levine, Law
Offices of Anidjar & Levine, P.A., Ft. Lauderdale, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Carlton A. Bober and Nicolette John, Vernis & Bowling of Broward, P.A.,
Hollywood, for Defendant-Appellant.
(Before
MARCUS and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges, and TREADWELL,* District Judge.)
MARCUS and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges, and TREADWELL,* District Judge.)
(PER
CURIAM.) Two issues are presented on appeal from a judgment based on a jury
verdict for plaintiff, in this diversity case, springing from a slip-and-fall
at one of defendant’s stores. After hearing oral argument and after
deliberation, we conclude that no reversible error is present.
CURIAM.) Two issues are presented on appeal from a judgment based on a jury
verdict for plaintiff, in this diversity case, springing from a slip-and-fall
at one of defendant’s stores. After hearing oral argument and after
deliberation, we conclude that no reversible error is present.
About
Defendant’s Renewed Motion for JMOL, we conclude that the record
evidence—viewed in plaintiff’s favor—was sufficient for the verdict1:
evidence including the approximately two-foot size of the puddle of bleach, the
distinctive odor of bleach, the presence of tracks not made by plaintiff or her
husband through the puddle, and the proximity within about ten feet of the
puddle of defendant’s employees.
Defendant’s Renewed Motion for JMOL, we conclude that the record
evidence—viewed in plaintiff’s favor—was sufficient for the verdict1:
evidence including the approximately two-foot size of the puddle of bleach, the
distinctive odor of bleach, the presence of tracks not made by plaintiff or her
husband through the puddle, and the proximity within about ten feet of the
puddle of defendant’s employees.
About
the exclusion of a purported expert’s opinion, we conclude that the trial judge
did not abuse her discretion, especially given the expert’s broad lack of
knowledge of the background and underpinning of the information in the DRG on
which the expert relied considerably.2
the exclusion of a purported expert’s opinion, we conclude that the trial judge
did not abuse her discretion, especially given the expert’s broad lack of
knowledge of the background and underpinning of the information in the DRG on
which the expert relied considerably.2
AFFIRMED.
──────────────────
*Honorable
Marc T. Treadwell, United States District Judge for the Middle District of
Georgia, sitting by designation.
Marc T. Treadwell, United States District Judge for the Middle District of
Georgia, sitting by designation.
1Furthermore,
no new trial was demanded.
no new trial was demanded.
2We
do not read State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Bowling, 81 So.3d 538
(Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012) to demand admission of the proposed expert testimony
in this case. Bowling seems to decide a materially different case. For
example, Bowling seems to be about, to a significant degree, an argument
that the medical services billed did not reflect medical services actually
delivered according to the treatment records and not about mainly a conflict
over the reasonableness of charges for medical services, assumed to have been
delivered.
do not read State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Bowling, 81 So.3d 538
(Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012) to demand admission of the proposed expert testimony
in this case. Bowling seems to decide a materially different case. For
example, Bowling seems to be about, to a significant degree, an argument
that the medical services billed did not reflect medical services actually
delivered according to the treatment records and not about mainly a conflict
over the reasonableness of charges for medical services, assumed to have been
delivered.
* *
*
*