Manzone v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
1:17-cv-00277
| E.D.N.Y | Sep 9, 2020Background
- On Sept. 23, 2016 Cheryl Manzone slipped and fell in an aisle of the Wal‑Mart Super Center in Milford, Pennsylvania; she alleges the fall occurred on a wet substance related to floor stripping/waxing and claims serious neurologic injuries (including a CVA/stroke) and other impairments.
- Defendant Wal‑Mart moved in limine (and in the alternative for partial summary judgment) to preclude: (a) plaintiff’s biomechanics expert Angela D. DiDomenico, Ph.D., or at least certain topics of her testimony (including evidence about Wal‑Mart’s internal safety standards); and (b) two treating physicians, Dr. Kevin Cartmill (ER) and Dr. James Liguori (neurology).
- Wal‑Mart argued DiDomenico’s opinions usurp the jury (video of the fall is available), are outside her qualifications, and improperly state legal conclusions; it argued the treating docs could not reliably opine on causation based on their depositions.
- The Court denied the motion in part and granted it in part: DiDomenico is qualified to testify about slip‑and‑fall biomechanics, causation mechanisms, injury types, and Wal‑Mart’s internal safety standards, but may not offer legal conclusions (e.g., that Wal‑Mart was negligent or that her opinions establish proximate cause).
- The Court denied Wal‑Mart’s attempt to preclude testimony from Drs. Cartmill and Liguori, permitting them to testify about observations and opinions formed in the course of treatment (subject to Rule 26 limits and ordinary trial objections); the Court also denied any summary‑judgment relief because Wal‑Mart failed to comply with Local Rule 56.1.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Dr. DiDomenico’s expert testimony | DiDomenico is a qualified biomechanist who can explain slip/trip/fall mechanisms, injuries, and standards of care; her opinions will assist the jury | Video shows the fall; expert intrudes on jury’s function; she is unqualified on safety policies and offers legal conclusions | Admitted under Rule 702 for biomechanics and safety‑standard testimony; excluded from giving legal conclusions (proximate cause, negligence) |
| Use of Wal‑Mart’s internal safety standards at trial | Standards are relevant to breach and consistent with duty of care; expert may explain them | Company policies do not create a legal duty and would confuse or prejudice the jury | Admissible and may be explained by plaintiff’s expert as relevant context to duty/breach under Pennsylvania law; preclusion denied |
| Admissibility of treating physicians’ testimony (Drs. Cartmill & Liguori) | Treating physicians may testify to observations, diagnoses, and treatment opinions formed during care; their testimony, with other treating doctors, bears on causation and damages | Depositions showed the doctors could not state causation to a medical certainty; testimony is irrelevant or unreliable | Denied preclusion; doctors may testify about facts and opinions formed in treatment (limited by Rule 26 and subject to cross‑examination); if testimony exceeds that scope, objections may be raised at trial |
| Motion styled as partial summary judgment (procedural compliance) | — | Wal‑Mart presented alternative summary‑judgment relief in the motion papers | Court denied summary‑judgment relief because Wal‑Mart failed to comply with Local Civil Rule 56.1 |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (trial courts act as gatekeepers on expert admissibility)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) (Daubert gatekeeping extends to all expert testimony)
- Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997) (courts may exclude expert opinions with an unreasonable analytical gap)
- Amorgianos v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 303 F.3d 256 (2d Cir. 2002) (Daubert factors are flexible; admissibility review explained)
- Nimely v. City of New York, 414 F.3d 381 (2d Cir. 2005) (standards for qualification and helpfulness of expert testimony)
- Borawick v. Shay, 68 F.3d 597 (2d Cir. 1995) (presumption in favor of admissibility; cross‑examination and contrary evidence address weak experts)
- Jean‑Laurent v. Hennessy, 840 F. Supp. 2d 529 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (purpose and procedure for motions in limine)
- Muncie Aviation Corp. v. Party Doll Fleet, Inc., 519 F.2d 1178 (5th Cir. 1975) (customs within an organization admissible to show standard of care)
- Dallas v. F.M. Oxford Inc., 552 A.2d 1109 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1989) (admission of private or governmental standards may bear on negligence standard of care)