Vincent v. Harrington Raceway, Inc., K14C-05-013 RBY

Plaintiff Kimothy Vincent alleged he was injured in a May 2012 fall at Harrington Raceway when a barstool's chair portion detached, causing him to fall; a third‑party defendant was initially alleged to have leaned on the stool but was later dismissed by stipulation.
Plaintiff disclosed two experts: Joseph C. Vincent, D.C., and Michele Y. Holding, M.D.; defendants moved in limine to exclude lay evidence of defect, both experts, and evidence of insurance details.
Dr. Vincent’s report relied on an initial May 28, 2012 visit and failed to account for a later (August 2012) hand fracture reflected in medical records.
Dr. Holding’s report diagnosed nerve and orthopedic conditions she attributed to the May 2012 fall, included recommendations for future care, but misstated the timing/age of a subsequent hand fracture.
The court evaluated (1) whether lay testimony may establish a product/condition defect, (2) admissibility of each expert under D.R.E. 702 (sufficient facts, alternative causes, notice), and (3) admissibility of insurance evidence under D.R.E. 411.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of lay testimony on whether the barstool was a dangerous/defective condition	Lay testimony about the stool’s condition is permissible (distinguishing from products cases)	Whether the stool was dangerous is outside layperson knowledge and requires expert proof	Granted for defendant — lay opinion on defect excluded as improper opinion evidence
Admissibility of Dr. Joseph C. Vincent, D.C. (causation/opinion)	Dr. Vincent may opine on causation from his examination	Report fails to consider later hand fracture and lacks sufficient factual basis	Granted for defendant — Dr. Vincent’s testimony excluded for insufficient factual predicate
Admissibility of Dr. Michele Y. Holding, M.D. (diagnosis/prognosis/causation)	Dr. Holding’s report supports causation, diagnoses, and future care; puts defendant on notice	Report contains factual inaccuracies and fails to eliminate alternative causes	Denied for defendant — Dr. Holding admissible; report provides sufficient facts, ability to address alternate causes, and adequate notice
Admissibility of evidence re: insurance (policy limits, premiums, coverage amount)	Such evidence may be relevant for settlement context or impeachment	Insurance details are inadmissible to show negligence	Granted for defendant — evidence excluded under D.R.E. 411

Perry v. Berkley, 996 A.2d 1262 (Del. 2010) (expert testimony properly excluded where opinion rested on inaccurate factual predicate)