In Starnes v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, a woman alleged in federal court that she sustained personal injuries when a large bottle of shampoo fell on her head while shopping at a Tennessee department store. According to the woman, the bottle fell because an employee knocked it over while restocking merchandise located on the same shelf in the next aisle. In her complaint, the woman claimed that she suffered neck and shoulder pain, dizziness, nausea, and a variety of other injuries as a result of being struck by the falling bottle.
Before trial, both the woman and the department store filed a motion for a Daubert hearing. When a party to a lawsuit files a Daubert motion, he or she is asking the court to admit or exclude certain expert testimony and evidence. The idea behind this motion is to ensure that the expert testimony offered by each party is based on scientifically valid and widely accepted methodology. A Daubert motion is considered by a judge while outside the jury’s presence. In a federal proceeding, a Daubert hearing is evaluated using Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 702. Still, courts within the Sixth Circuit such as the Eastern District of Tennessee are not required to conduct a Daubert hearing.
After reviewing each party’s written motion, the Knoxville court stated neither party provided the court with a sufficient level of detail. Both parties apparently failed to describe specific testimony challenges or apply Rule 702 to the case. Despite this, the court said oral arguments and exhibits offered the court a sufficient record on which to make its Daubert determination. Next, the Eastern District of Tennessee ruled that testimony offered by two of the woman’s treating physicians should be allowed at trial. The federal court also held that the opinions of an expert witness hired by the department store to review the woman’s medical file were permitted, except for irrelevant testimony that relied on another patient’s medical records.
If you were hurt while patronizing a business in Tennessee, you may have a premises liability claim. A property owner in Tennessee and elsewhere must exercise reasonable care and remove any hazards on the property that are known to the owner. If a business or other property owner is aware of or should be aware of a dangerous condition, the owner has a duty to warn visitors and invitees about it. It is important to note that a property owner may not be held responsible for any injuries that resulted from a hazard that the property owner was either unaware of or could not reasonably have discovered. Offering adequate expert testimony and other evidence at trial can be critical to a plaintiff’s personal injury case.
The hardworking attorneys at the Hartsoe Law Firm, P.C. assist individuals in Eastern Tennessee who were injured as a result of a property owner’s failure to exercise reasonable care. To speak with a knowledgeable personal injury lawyer about your case, please call the Hartsoe Law Firm, P.C. at (865) 524-5657 or contact us through our website today.
Starnes v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, Dist. Court, ED Tennessee 2014
Related Blog Posts:
Jury’s Comparative Fault Verdict Upheld in Eastern Tennessee Auto Collision Case: Miller v. Moretz, July 16, 2014, Knoxville Injury Lawyer Blog
Tennessee Federal Court Discusses Elements of Premises Liability Claim: Griffin v. Wal-Mart Stores East. LP, July 9, 2014, Knoxville Injury Lawyer Blog