CARNIVAL CORPORATION AND, CARNIVAL CRUISE LINES, APPELLANTS,
v.
SUSAN STOWERS, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Carnival Corporation appeals a personal injury verdict in a maritime slip-and-fall case, arguing that the trial court improperly admitted expert testimony regarding whether liquid retained on the plaintiff's shoe caused her to slip on granite stairs. The appellate court reverses and grants a new trial because the expert's opinion lacked proper factual foundation.
The trial court erred in permitting the expert opinion because it lacked a proper factual basis. An expert's opinion must be based on valid underlying data with a proper factual foundation, and here the expert established no such foundation regarding the carpet's properties or the retention of liquid on the shoe.
[1] An expert witness's opinion must be based on valid underlying data with a proper factual basis to be admissible.
[2] An expert witness's opinion is inadmissible when it is based on unconfirmed data and the expert lacks knowledge of the materials involved or has not performed relevant te…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“To be admissible, an expert's opinion must be based on valid underlying data which has a proper factual basis.”
Establishes the legal standard for admissibility of expert testimony that the trial court failed to apply.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSusan Stowers slipped and fell on a granite step aboard a Carnival cruise ship, injuring her leg and ankle. She alleged she had stepped in soapy liqui…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Maritime Personal Injury cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellants, Carnival Corporation and Carnival Cruise Lines (“Carnival”), appeal an adverse order in a maritime personal injury action brought by a passenger who slipped and fell while on a Carnival cruise ship. We reverse and grant Carnival a new trial because the trial court improperly permitted an expert witness to render an opinion based on unconfirmed data.
Appellee Susan Stowers (“Stowers”) injured her leg and ankle when she slipped and fell on a granite step while on a Carnival cruise ship. Stowers sued Carnival for negligence. She alleged that she slipped on the step after stepping in soapy liquid on a section of carpet in one of the ship’s lounges.
After Stowers allegedly stepped in this liquid, she walked the length of the dry carpeted room and outside to the kiddie pool area to see if the pool had water. She then went back inside the lounge and again walked the length of the carpeted room to the granite step where she slipped and fell. Stowers contended that soapy liquid remained on her shoe from the puddle she stepped in and caused her to slip.
At trial, Ron Zoilo (“Zoilo”), Stow-ers’s engineering expert, gave his opinion as to what caused Stowers to slip. Zoilo opined that Stowers’s shoe retained the liquid throughout her walk over the dry carpet and transferred it to the steps. This made the steps very slippery, which caused Stowers to fall.
Carnival objected to Zoilo being permitted to render his opinion about the carpet’s ability to absorb and/or wick liquid. The trial court permitted Zollo’s testimony in spite of the fact that Zoilo admitted he did not know what material the carpet was made of and he did not perform any tests on the carpet. Further, Zoilo testified that he had no specialized education or training concerning carpet.
To be admissible, an expert’s opinion must be based on valid underlying data which has a proper factual basis. See Carrier v. Ramsey, 714 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Brito v. County of Palm Beach, 753 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Newell v. Best Security Systems, Inc., 560 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).
Here, Zoilo admitted that he did not know the composition of the carpet, had not tested the water absorbing properties of the carpet and did not attempt to recreate the incident. Instead, Zoilo based his opinion on the results of coefficient of friction tests he preformed solely on the granite stairs.
Zoilo clearly did not establish the existence of valid underlying data upon which he based his opinion. Because this opinion lacked a proper factual basis, the trial court erred when it allowed Zoilo to opine that Stowers’s shoes retained liquid which caused her to slip after her walk across the approximately 120'-140' of dry carpet. See Carrier v. Ramsey, 714 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998).
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Aragon v. Moises Issa, M.D., Primary Care Physicians of Hollywood, P.A., 103 So. 3d 887 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…treated in a major-burn institution); Elder v. Farulla, 768 So. 2d 1152, 1154 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (causation not established when expert witness could not testify with certainty regarding the cause of plaintiffs condition); Carnival Corp. v. Stowers, 834 So. 2d 386, 387 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (expert witness’s opinion regarding the carpet’s ability to absorb or wick liquid had no factual basis when he did not know either the composition or the absorbing properties of the carpet). The expert testimony presented he…
-
Daniels v. State, 4 So. 3d 745 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…on her experience as a child abuse investigator. IV. DISCUSSION A. The Admissibility of the Expert’s Opinion An expert’s opinion is admissible if it is “based on valid underlying data which has a proper factual basis.” Carnival Corp. v. Stowers, 834 So. 2d 386, 387 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). However, if an “expert’s opinion is based on speculation and conjecture, not supported by the facts, or not arrived at by [a] recognized methodology,” it should not be admitted into evidence. See M.A. Hajianpour, M.D., P.A.…
-
Colin Orpe v. Carnival Corp. & Gary Ferris, 909 So. 2d 929 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…r factual basis from which to testify. It should not be too much to expect, in the usual personal injury case, that a liability expert will have examined the premises or product which is alleged to have caused the injury. Carnival Corp. v. Stowers, 834 So. 2d 386, 387 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)(expert’s opinion must be based upon valid underlying data which has proper factual basis). If the trial judge’s decision in this case was influenced by the fact that Wilson had not done so, then his instincts and judgment as…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Brito v. Cnty. OF Palm Beach, 753 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Newell v. Best Sec. Sys., Inc., 560 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- Carrier v. Garland W. Ramsey and Yvette L. Ramsey, 714 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)