Rosenfeld v. Oceania Cruises, Inc.
654 F.3d 1190
| 11th Cir. | 2011Background
- Rosenfeld, a passenger on the M/V Nautica, slipped on ceramic tile near the Terrace Café and suffered a shoulder fracture.
- She filed a diversity action against Oceania Cruises, Inc. seeking damages for alleged negligence in choosing an inadequate flooring surface.
- Rosenfeld offered expert Peter Vournechis to test the floor’s coefficient of friction under wet conditions, arguing the surface was unreasonably unsafe.
- The district court precluded Vournechis’s testimony as unhelpful under Daubert/FRAZIER standards, ruling such conclusions were for the court or jury to decide.
- At trial, the court denied Rosenfeld’s request to read Vournechis’s deposition to the jury and gave a negligence instruction framing the claim as failure to choose an adequate flooring surface.
- The jury returned a verdict for Oceania; Rosenfeld appealed the preclusion order and denial of a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion excluding expert testimony | Rosenfeld argues Vournechis’s testimony on slip resistance is admissible under Frazier/Daubert. | Oceania contends the testimony was unhelpful and should be excluded. | Abuse of discretion; excluded evidence should have been admitted. |
| Whether exclusion of the expert prevented the jury from evaluating the flooring choice | Evidence on slip resistance was central to Rosenfeld’s theory of negligent flooring choice. | The court properly limited expert testimony as not helpful. | Exclusion deprived the jury of essential evidence on flooring safety. |
| Whether any error was harmless given the trial record | Admissible expert testimony could have affected the outcome. | Any error was harmless and did not affect the result. | Not harmless; new trial warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Frazier, 387 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir.2004) (en banc three-part Daubert inquiry)
- Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1999) (gatekeeper standard for expert testimony)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (S. Ct. 1993) (reliability and admissibility of expert testimony)
- Maiz v. Virani, 253 F.3d 641 (11th Cir.2001) (admissibility vs. weight; adversarial testing remains proper)
- Quiet Tech. DC-8, Inc. v. Hurel-Dubois UK Ltd., 326 F.3d 1333 (11th Cir.2003) (gatekeeping role does not replace trial with cross-examination)
- United States v. Rouco, 765 F.2d 983 (11th Cir.1985) (expert evidence beyond lay understanding may be probative)
- Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir.1981) (en banc adoption of Fifth Circuit decisions)
- Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Cutrer, 298 F.2d 79 (5th Cir.1962) (illustrates consideration of coefficient of friction in safety cases)