Tort/Neglignece – Unreliable Expert Testimony – Prejudiced by Admission of Testimony

Listen to this article

The substance of Respondents’ expert’s testimony was unreliable and the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the testimony because the expert failed to provide evidence of any prior application of her method to the type of evidence in this case.

We reversed and remanded for a new trial based on the erroneous admission of unreliable expert testimony.

In this slip-and-fall case, a jury found that Respondents and Appellant were each 50% at fault and awarded Appellant half of her current medical expenses but nothing for pain and suffering or future medical costs. Appellant appealed, arguing, among other things, that the trial court erred by allowing Respondents’ expert witness to testify.

The trial court allowed Respondents’ expert in human factors psychology to testify as to her opinion that based on certain behaviors she observed in video footage of the fall, Appellant had some awareness that the floor was slippery. We held the substance of this testimony was unreliable and the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the testimony because the expert failed to provide evidence of any prior application of her method to the type of evidence in this case. Even if the testimony was nonscientific, the expert’s testimony still lacks sufficient indicia of reliability. Thus, because the expert provided neither evidence of a prior application of her method to the type of evidence in this case nor evidence to validate the success of her inference, her testimony was not sufficiently reliable, and the trial court erred by admitting her expert testimony. Moreover, we held this error was prejudicial as the evidence likely influenced the jury. The jury found Appellant to be 50% at fault and thus her damages award was reduced by 50%. Her knowledge about the dangerous condition was a contested fact relevant to the jury’s assessment of her comparative fault. Given that the expert provided the only evidence as to Appellant’s actual knowledge of the slippery floor, there is a reasonable probability that the expert’s testimony influenced the jury’s determination of comparative fault, especially considering the instruction that assumption of the risk—which requires actual knowledge of the dangerous condition—could be compared with the defendant’s negligence. For this reason, we held Appellant was prejudiced by the admission of this testimony.

In sum, the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the expert testimony because the evidence in the record is insufficient to show that the substance of her testimony was reliable, and we held this error prejudiced Appellant.

Reversed and remanded.

Gurwood v. GCA Services Group Inc. (Lawyers’ Weekly No. 012-063-25, 13 pp.) (Per Curiam) Appealed from Charleston County Circuit Court (Alex Kinlaw, Jr., J.) Karrie Gurwood and Howard Gurwood, of Charleston, pro se. Robert T. Lyles, Jr., of Lyles & Associates, LLC, of Mt. Pleasant, for Respondents. South Carolina Court of Appeals Unpublished