Rosenfeld v. Oceania Cruises, Inc.

Plaintiff brought a diversity action against the operator of a vessel to recover for her injuries from a slip and fall on the vessel, claiming, inter alia, that defendant negligently caused the accident by failing to provide an adequate flooring surface for the area where she fell. Plaintiff subsequently appealed from the district court's orders granting defendant's motion to preclude plaintiff's expert testimony and denying plaintiff's motion for a new trial. The court held that because the jury was not allowed to consider evidence about whether the slip resistance of the flooring posed a danger to passengers aboard the vessel, it could not have found in plaintiff's favor with regard to her main negligence theory; matters of slip resistance and surface friction were "beyond the understanding and experience of the average lay citizen." Therefore, the court held that the district court erred by granting defendant's motion to preclude the expert proposed testimony. Accordingly, the court held that the new trial was warranted and plaintiff was entitled to submit expert testimony regarding the adequacy of defendant's choice of flooring surface.