Loading
A safety expert may testify in a store parking lot slip-and-fall case when specialized knowledge would help the judge or jury understand a disputed condition and the testimony satisfies applicable qualification, reliability, and admissibility requirements.
Some conditions can be evaluated through photographs, witness testimony, maintenance records, and ordinary experience. Others may call for measurements, technical standards, specialized testing, or engineering analysis.
This guide explains what a parking lot safety expert may analyze, when expert testimony may be necessary, and how courts evaluate admissibility under Federal Rule of Evidence 702.
The appropriate expert depends on what allegedly contributed to the fall. A safety professional, engineer, slip-resistance specialist, human factors expert, or other qualified professional may evaluate issues such as:
A qualified expert may compare observed conditions with applicable codes, standards, technical principles, or documented industry practices that relate to the disputed issue.
The expert's role is not to decide whether the store was legally negligent. Instead, the expert can explain technical findings that may help the factfinder evaluate disputed issues.
The disputed condition should guide expert selection because the label "safety expert" can cover several disciplines.
A civil or safety engineer may be appropriate for pavement, slope, drainage, or design issues. Surface traction and testing may call for a qualified slip-resistance specialist. A lighting or human factors professional may be useful when visibility requires specialized analysis. Snow-and-ice management expertise may be appropriate when winter maintenance practices are central to the dispute.
Attorneys should consider whether the expert's education, training, experience, and methodology match the opinions the expert will be asked to offer.
Safety expert witnesses may analyze parking lot slip-and-fall cases involving pavement, drainage, lighting, traction, maintenance, and other technical conditions. This article explains expert selection, evidence and testing, applicable standards, when expert testimony may be necessary, and reliability and admissibility requirements under Rule 702.
Trip and Falls
Safety Management
Site Inspection
Building Maintenance
Signs and Markings
Building Code Compliance
A safety expert may testify in a store parking lot slip-and-fall case when specialized knowledge would help the judge or jury understand a disputed condition and the testimony satisfies applicable qualification, reliability, and admissibility requirements.
Some conditions can be evaluated through photographs, witness testimony, maintenance records, and ordinary experience. Others may call for measurements, technical standards, specialized testing, or engineering analysis.
This guide explains what a parking lot safety expert may analyze, when expert testimony may be necessary, and how courts evaluate admissibility under Federal Rule of Evidence 702.
The appropriate expert depends on what allegedly contributed to the fall. A safety professional, engineer, slip-resistance specialist, human factors expert, or other qualified professional may evaluate issues such as:
A qualified expert may compare observed conditions with applicable codes, standards, technical principles, or documented industry practices that relate to the disputed issue.
The expert's role is not to decide whether the store was legally negligent. Instead, the expert can explain technical findings that may help the factfinder evaluate disputed issues.
The disputed condition should guide expert selection because the label "safety expert" can cover several disciplines.
A civil or safety engineer may be appropriate for pavement, slope, drainage, or design issues. Surface traction and testing may call for a qualified slip-resistance specialist. A lighting or human factors professional may be useful when visibility requires specialized analysis. Snow-and-ice management expertise may be appropriate when winter maintenance practices are central to the dispute.
Attorneys should consider whether the expert's education, training, experience, and methodology match the opinions the expert will be asked to offer.
Expert analysis should generally be based on evidence about the conditions involved in the incident. Depending on the dispute, an expert may review:
Parking lots may be resurfaced, patched, restriped, or otherwise altered after an incident. Photographs and records from around the time of the event may therefore be especially important when the original condition can no longer be examined.
The legal requirements for a customer parking lot depend on the condition at issue and the governing jurisdiction. State or local rules and accessibility requirements may apply, while site-specific design criteria and recognized technical standards may also inform the analysis.
The Americans with Disabilities Act may be relevant when a dispute involves accessible parking spaces, access aisles, or accessible routes. Where applicable, the 2010 ADA Standards address accessible routes and the surfaces and slopes of accessible parking spaces and access aisles.
OSHA serves a different purpose. The Occupational Safety and Health Act concerns occupational safety and health, and the construction standards in Part 1926 apply to employees engaged in construction work. Those provisions should not automatically be treated as the legal standard for a retail customer's parking lot accident.
An expert should explain why any cited code, standard, or guideline applies to the disputed condition.
Technical testing can be useful when a disputed condition cannot reliably be evaluated through ordinary observation.
For example, slip-resistance or coefficient-of-friction testing may help when a party contends that a wet surface provided inadequate traction. Reliability may depend on the testing method, testing conditions, and how closely those conditions reflect the circumstances relevant to the incident.
Under Rule 702, credentials alone are not enough. The testing and resulting opinion must also satisfy the rule's reliability requirements.
Not every parking lot fall requires expert testimony. Some issues, such as whether a visible obstruction or warning sign was present, may fall within a juror's ordinary experience. Whether an expert is required depends on the claim, disputed condition, and governing jurisdiction.
In Bunting v. District of Columbia CVS Pharmacy, LLC, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held, under District of Columbia law and the theory presented, that expert testimony was needed to address whether a walkway's coefficient of friction made it dangerously slippery.
Beyond expert testimony addressing whether the walkway was dangerously slippery, the court stated that no further expert testimony was required for jurors to understand the issues pertaining to CVS's duty of care under the circumstances. The court did not decide CVS's alternative notice argument and left Rule 702 admissibility questions for the district court on remand.
The decision illustrates why the need for an expert should be tied to the particular technical issue rather than assumed in every slip-and-fall case.
In federal civil proceedings governed by the Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 702 sets the principal qualification and admissibility requirements for expert testimony. The proponent must show that it is more likely than not that the rule's requirements are satisfied.
Among other requirements, the testimony must:
The 2023 amendment clarified that the proponent must establish these admissibility requirements by the more-likely-than-not standard. Once that threshold is met, some remaining objections may concern weight rather than admissibility.
In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the Supreme Court described the federal trial court's gatekeeping role for relevant and reliable scientific expert testimony. Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael confirmed that this obligation also applies to technical and other specialized expert testimony.
Attorneys litigating in state court should confirm the evidentiary rules and precedent governing the jurisdiction.
A safety expert may be challenged based on qualifications, methodology, factual foundation, relevance, or the scope of the opinions offered.
Common issues include whether:
Qualifications alone do not establish admissibility. Rule 702 also requires an adequate factual basis, reliable methodology, and reliable application to the facts.
Can a safety expert testify in every parking lot slip-and-fall case?
No. Expert testimony must satisfy the applicable evidentiary rules, and some parking lot issues can be understood without specialized knowledge.
When is a slip-resistance expert useful?
A slip-resistance expert may be useful when the case turns on whether a particular surface provided adequate traction under relevant conditions and reliable testing can address that question.
Can a safety expert testify that a store was negligent?
A safety expert should generally focus on technical findings within the expert's field rather than instructing the jury how to resolve the ultimate legal question. The scope of the expert's testimony depends on the governing law and the court's evidentiary rulings.
Does OSHA determine whether a store parking lot was safe for customers?
Generally, no. OSHA regulates occupational safety and health in covered workplaces. Its requirements should not automatically be treated as the governing customer premises-liability standard.
What evidence should attorneys consider preserving after a parking lot slip-and-fall?
Potentially important evidence includes photographs, surveillance footage, inspection and maintenance records, work orders, incident reports, weather information, snow-removal records when relevant, and information documenting later repairs or alterations.
Expert analysis should generally be based on evidence about the conditions involved in the incident. Depending on the dispute, an expert may review:
Parking lots may be resurfaced, patched, restriped, or otherwise altered after an incident. Photographs and records from around the time of the event may therefore be especially important when the original condition can no longer be examined.
The legal requirements for a customer parking lot depend on the condition at issue and the governing jurisdiction. State or local rules and accessibility requirements may apply, while site-specific design criteria and recognized technical standards may also inform the analysis.
The Americans with Disabilities Act may be relevant when a dispute involves accessible parking spaces, access aisles, or accessible routes. Where applicable, the 2010 ADA Standards address accessible routes and the surfaces and slopes of accessible parking spaces and access aisles.
OSHA serves a different purpose. The Occupational Safety and Health Act concerns occupational safety and health, and the construction standards in Part 1926 apply to employees engaged in construction work. Those provisions should not automatically be treated as the legal standard for a retail customer's parking lot accident.
An expert should explain why any cited code, standard, or guideline applies to the disputed condition.
Technical testing can be useful when a disputed condition cannot reliably be evaluated through ordinary observation.
For example, slip-resistance or coefficient-of-friction testing may help when a party contends that a wet surface provided inadequate traction. Reliability may depend on the testing method, testing conditions, and how closely those conditions reflect the circumstances relevant to the incident.
Under Rule 702, credentials alone are not enough. The testing and resulting opinion must also satisfy the rule's reliability requirements.
Not every parking lot fall requires expert testimony. Some issues, such as whether a visible obstruction or warning sign was present, may fall within a juror's ordinary experience. Whether an expert is required depends on the claim, disputed condition, and governing jurisdiction.
In Bunting v. District of Columbia CVS Pharmacy, LLC, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held, under District of Columbia law and the theory presented, that expert testimony was needed to address whether a walkway's coefficient of friction made it dangerously slippery.
Beyond expert testimony addressing whether the walkway was dangerously slippery, the court stated that no further expert testimony was required for jurors to understand the issues pertaining to CVS's duty of care under the circumstances. The court did not decide CVS's alternative notice argument and left Rule 702 admissibility questions for the district court on remand.
The decision illustrates why the need for an expert should be tied to the particular technical issue rather than assumed in every slip-and-fall case.
In federal civil proceedings governed by the Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 702 sets the principal qualification and admissibility requirements for expert testimony. The proponent must show that it is more likely than not that the rule's requirements are satisfied.
Among other requirements, the testimony must:
The 2023 amendment clarified that the proponent must establish these admissibility requirements by the more-likely-than-not standard. Once that threshold is met, some remaining objections may concern weight rather than admissibility.
In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the Supreme Court described the federal trial court's gatekeeping role for relevant and reliable scientific expert testimony. Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael confirmed that this obligation also applies to technical and other specialized expert testimony.
Attorneys litigating in state court should confirm the evidentiary rules and precedent governing the jurisdiction.
A safety expert may be challenged based on qualifications, methodology, factual foundation, relevance, or the scope of the opinions offered.
Common issues include whether:
Qualifications alone do not establish admissibility. Rule 702 also requires an adequate factual basis, reliable methodology, and reliable application to the facts.
Can a safety expert testify in every parking lot slip-and-fall case?
No. Expert testimony must satisfy the applicable evidentiary rules, and some parking lot issues can be understood without specialized knowledge.
When is a slip-resistance expert useful?
A slip-resistance expert may be useful when the case turns on whether a particular surface provided adequate traction under relevant conditions and reliable testing can address that question.
Can a safety expert testify that a store was negligent?
A safety expert should generally focus on technical findings within the expert's field rather than instructing the jury how to resolve the ultimate legal question. The scope of the expert's testimony depends on the governing law and the court's evidentiary rulings.
Does OSHA determine whether a store parking lot was safe for customers?
Generally, no. OSHA regulates occupational safety and health in covered workplaces. Its requirements should not automatically be treated as the governing customer premises-liability standard.
What evidence should attorneys consider preserving after a parking lot slip-and-fall?
Potentially important evidence includes photographs, surveillance footage, inspection and maintenance records, work orders, incident reports, weather information, snow-removal records when relevant, and information documenting later repairs or alterations.
Trip and Falls
Safety Management
Site Inspection
Building Maintenance
Signs and Markings
Building Code Compliance
Expert Witness Insights by Area of Expertise
Expert Witness Insights by Area of Expertise
