General knowledge of slip resistance is enough to qualify expert

Law Reporter, Mar 2003

Libbey v. Wabash Nat'l Corp., No. 02-16-P-H, 2002 WL 31246509 (D. Me. Oct. 7,2002).

A U.S. district court held that an expert witness's expertise concerning the slip resistance of metal surfaces qualified him to testify in a slip and fall case despite his lack of familiarity with the specific vehicle in which the injury occurred.

Here, Libbey was working on the bed of a truck trailer when he slipped and fell. He and his wife sued the manufacturer, alleging that the truck trailer bed was unreasonably dangerous due to a design defect. Plaintiffs sought to introduce the testimony of an expert witness concerning the design of the trailer. Defendant moved to exclude this testimony, contending that the expert was not qualified in that he had never worked on or inspected such a trailer and did not point to any industry standards that were violated by defendant.

Denying the motion, the court found that the expert was planning to testify that the painted metal surfaces of the I-beam flanges in the trailer bed would have been slippery when wet and that the presence of these surfaces contributed significantly to Libbey's injuries. He also planned to testify that installation of an available slip-resistant surface on the smooth surfaces of the I-beam flanges would have prevented the injury.

The absence of studies, tests, or statistics to support this conclusion does not make the testimony inadmissible, the court said. To disallow expert testimony because there are no industry standards applicable to the precise mechanism of injury in a given case would prevent expert testimony in any case involving an injury that had not been anticipated or otherwise addressed by the industry involved.

The expert's admitted lack of familiarity with the use, design, and manufacture of flatbed trailers does not automatically disqualify him from expressing an expert opinion about the slip resistance of a portion of the surface of defendant's flatbed trailer design, the court said. His expertise regarding the slip resistance of metal surfaces is sufficient to qualify him to testify. The other issues raised by defendant, such as the expert's inexperience inspecting this precise type of vehicle, has more to do with the weight to be assigned to his testimony than with its admissibility, the court concluded.

Plaintiffs' Counsel

*W. Wright Danenbarger, Manchester, N.H.

Dort S. Bigg, Manchester, N.H.