Barton v. North Slope Borough School District, 268 P.3d 346

Barton was an elderly spectator injured when a player collided with her near the sideline at the Barrow High School football field on August 17, 2007.
Astroturf field had a 10–12 foot turf skirt and orange construction fencing along the sidelines.
Barton sued the North Slope Borough School District alleging negligent field design, barriers, and supervision.
Barton disclosed two experts, including Juliet Vong, who authored a letter attaching Sports Fields: A Manual for Design, Construction and Maintenance.
District moved to exclude Vong’s report/testimony as noncompliant with Civil Rule 26(a)(2)(B) and not helpful; court agreed to exclude.
Trial proceeded; District defense prevailed, finding no negligence; Barton appeals arguing that exclusion of Vong’s testimony was error but harmless.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of Vong under Rule 702	Vong's testimony aided the jury by applying Sports Fields	Vong offered no express opinions; not helpful or compliant	Error to exclude, but harmless
Harmlessness of exclusion	Exclusion deprived jury of relevant standard dimensions from Sports Fields	Testimony would be largely cumulative and not essential	Harmless error; verdict not affected

Cartee v. Cartee, 239 P.3d 707 (Alaska 2010) (admissibility and impact of expert testimony standards)
Marsingill v. O'Malley, 128 P.3d 151 (Alaska 2006) (liberal standard for admissibility of expert testimony; reliability considerations)
City of Bethel v. Peters, 97 P.3d 822 (Alaska 2004) (evidence rules; learned treatises and admissibility)