United States District Court, N.D. Oklahoma
OPINION AND ORDER
TERENCE C. KERN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the court is the Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Expert, A.
Cord Adams, filed by defendant Ross Dress for Less Inc.
(“Ross”). Doc. 26. Plaintiff Rose Woods opposes
the motion. Doc. 34.
premises liability action, Plaintiff seeks damages for
injuries she sustained when she tripped and fell outside the
doors of a Ross store located at 1532 E. Hillside Drive in
Broken Arrow, Oklahoma. At issue is the placement of a Ross
“for hire” sign.
has identified an expert, Addison Cord Adams
(“Adams”) to offer testimony about the Broken
Arrow City Ordinances, the International Building Code
(“IBC”), and the International Property
Maintenance Code (“IPMC”). Ross contends that
Adams should not be permitted to testify because he is not
qualified to testify as an expert in this case; his testimony
is neither relevant nor reliable, and has no articulable
basis; he should be precluded from testifying as to the
applicable law; and his opinions would not be helpful to the
jury and would invade the province of the jury.
702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides:
A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill,
experience, training, or education may testify in the form of
an opinion or otherwise if:
(a) the expert's scientific, technical, or other
specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to
understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;
(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
(c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and
(d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and
methods to the facts of the case.
objection to an expert's testimony is raised, the court
must perform Daubert gatekeeper duties before the
jury is permitted to hear the evidence. Daubert v.
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 592-93
(1993); Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S.
137, 149 (1999). A trial court's gatekeeper duty requires
two separate inquiries: (1) the witness must be qualified to
offer the opinions he is espousing and (2) the proponent of
the witness bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of
the evidence that its witness's opinions are both
relevant and reliable. Kumho Tire, 526 U.S. at 141,
152. When the testimony of an expert is challenged, the
proponent of the testimony bears the burden of establishing
its admissibility. United States v. Nacchio, 555
F.3d 1234, 1241 (10th Cir. 2009) (en banc);
to his Rule 26 Report, Adams intends to testify that the sign
was a hazard that rendered the property dangerous, and that
Ross knew or should have known of the danger, but failed to