Katherine Lees v. Carthage College
714 F.3d 516
7th Cir.2013Background
- Lees, a Carthage College student, was sexually assaulted in Tarble Hall in 2008 and sues Carthage and its insurer for negligence.
- Lees sought to offer Dr. Daniel Kennedy as an expert on campus security standards to prove Carthage breached its duty.
- The district court excluded Kennedy’s testimony, ruling portions unreliable and granting summary judgment for Carthage.
- Kennedy’s report referenced IACLEA guidelines, Tarble Hall security gaps, and historical crime data; the court found issues with methodology and reliability.
- On appeal, the Seventh Circuit vacated/ remanded: some Kennedy testimony deemed admissible under Rule 702; foreseeability alone was not controlling for the standard of care.
- Summary judgment was improper because Kennedy’s testimony, in part, supports the standard-of-care breach and creates a genuine dispute for trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Kennedy under Rule 702 | Kennedy’s method is reliable; IACLEA guidelines are authoritative and relevant | Kennedy relied on aspirational guidelines and unadjusted crime history | Partially admissible; some opinions excluded, others admitted |
| Foreseeability vs. standard of care | Foreseeability supports duty/breach under Wisconsin law | Foreseeability not the controlling inquiry for standard of care | Foreseeability not the sole basis; standard of care must be proven via expert testimony |
| Use of IACLEA guidelines in determining standard of care | IACLEA guidelines inform the standard of care | Guidelines are aspirational, not controlling | Admissible as part of methodology; weight to be given to guidelines rather than determinative |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (Supreme Court (1993)) (establishes gatekeeping for expert testimony)
- Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (Supreme Court (1999)) (extends Daubert to all expert testimony)
- Dhillon v. Crown Controls Corp., 269 F.3d 865 (7th Cir. 2001) (notes Rule 702 framework for admissibility)
- Behrendt v. Gulf Underwriters Ins. Co., 768 N.W.2d 568 (Wis. 2009) (discusses duty and foreseeability in Wisconsin negligence)
- Gritzner v. Michael R., 611 N.W.2d 906 (Wis. 2000) (foreseeability related to breach, not duty)
- Varner v. District of Columbia, 891 A.2d 260 (D.C. 2006) (relevance of IACLEA guidelines in context of summary judgment)
- Nowatske v. Osterloh, 543 N.W.2d 265 (Wis. 1996) (premises-security expert testimony framework)
- Shier v. Freedman, 206 N.W.2d 166 (Wis. 1973) (rejects locality rule in medical negligence; informs standard of care)