Rosenfeld v. Oceania Cruises, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2011 · Evidence

654 F.3d 1190 (11th Cir. 2011)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceExpert testimonyRule 702Daubertexpert evidenceFrazierhelpfulnessreliability

Facts

Lydia Rosenfeld slipped and fell on a ceramic tile floor near the buffet bar of the M/V Nautica's Terrace Café and suffered a shoulder fracture. She sued Oceania Cruises, alleging among other things that Oceania negligently failed to provide an adequate flooring surface in that area. To support that theory, she offered Peter Vournechis, a floor-safety specialist who performed coefficient-of-friction tests and concluded that under wet conditions the ceramic tile around the Terrace Café had an inadequately low coefficient of friction and was not reasonably safe for a self-serve or bistro area. The district court excluded his testimony as unhelpful on the ground that whether the floor was unreasonably safe was a conclusion for the court or jury.

Issue

Did the district court abuse its discretion by excluding expert testimony about the slip resistance and safety of Oceania's flooring choice on the ground that such testimony would not assist the jury because the ultimate conclusion was for the jury to decide? If so, was the error harmless?

Rule

Under Rule 702, courts must conduct a three-part inquiry into whether the expert is qualified, whether the methodology is reliable, and whether the testimony will assist the trier of fact. A qualified expert using reliable testing methodology may testify about the safety of a flooring surface as measured by coefficient of friction when those matters are beyond the understanding and experience of the average lay citizen, and attacks on imprecision, assumptions, or omitted variables generally go to weight rather than admissibility.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Tampa, Nina Alvarez slipped in the beverage station of a ferry terminal operated by Gulf Meridian Transit. She sued, alleging the terminal used an unsafe floor surface, and offered a materials engineer who performed coefficient-of-friction testing and would testify that the tile was not reasonably safe when wet for a self-service area.

The trial judge excludes the testimony solely because the jury can decide for itself whether the floor was safe. What is the best ruling on appeal?

Explanation. Under Rule 702's helpfulness requirement, a qualified expert using reliable methodology may testify about flooring safety as measured by coefficient of friction when those matters are beyond the understanding of the average lay person. The court may not exclude such testimony merely because it bears on an ultimate issue for the jury. That was an abuse of discretion in the majority opinion.