Butts v. Weisz
410 F. App’x 470 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a negligence action, an expert witness's opinion on causation is inadmissible if it is speculative and not based on sufficient facts or data. Summary judgment for the defendant is appropriate if the plaintiff, lacking admissible expert testimony, cannot produce non-speculative evidence that the defendant's alleged negligence caused the injury.
Facts:
- Mr. and Mrs. Butts were visiting the home of their friends, Lloyd and Georgia Weisz.
- During the visit, Mr. Butts had successfully navigated a single step near the basement stairwell numerous times in the hours preceding his fall.
- Mr. Butts fell down the basement stairwell in the Weisz's home.
- No one witnessed the fall.
- As a result of the fall, Mr. Butts died from blunt head trauma.
- The area where the fall occurred allegedly had dim lighting and contained a dangerous single step.
Procedural Posture:
- Levone Butts (plaintiff), as executrix of her husband's estate, filed a wrongful death and negligence suit against Lloyd and Georgia Weisz (defendants) in the U.S. District Court.
- The Weiszes filed a motion to preclude the testimony of Mrs. Butts's expert witness on the issue of causation.
- The District Court granted the motion, ruling the expert's opinion on causation was speculative and inadmissible.
- The Weiszes then filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing Mrs. Butts had failed to present sufficient evidence of causation.
- The District Court granted the Weiszes' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case.
- Levone Butts (appellant) appealed the District Court's orders to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a plaintiff in a negligence action present a genuine issue of material fact on causation sufficient to survive summary judgment when their only evidence of causation is a speculative expert opinion based on the existence of allegedly dangerous conditions, where the accident itself was unwitnessed?
Opinions:
Majority - Sloviter, Circuit Judge
No. A plaintiff's speculative expert opinion, which is not based on direct evidence of how an unwitnessed accident occurred, is insufficient to establish the element of causation and cannot defeat a motion for summary judgment. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the expert's opinion on causation was properly excluded as speculative under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 because no one witnessed the fall. Without this testimony, the plaintiff had no evidence to prove that the alleged negligence (dim lighting and a dangerous step) was the cause of the decedent's fall. The court reasoned that the mere possibility of causation is not enough; a plaintiff must present evidence to show probability and eliminate other potential causes fairly suggested by the evidence. Furthermore, the court found no breach of duty, as the decedent had successfully navigated the step multiple times before the accident, indicating he was aware of the condition.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the trial court's gatekeeping function under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 to exclude speculative expert testimony, particularly in unwitnessed accident cases. It establishes a high evidentiary bar for plaintiffs trying to prove causation through circumstantial evidence, clarifying that the existence of a dangerous condition alone is not sufficient to create a jury question on causation. The ruling strengthens the summary judgment standard as a mechanism to dispose of negligence claims where the causal link is based on conjecture rather than concrete evidence. This makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to proceed to trial in unwitnessed tort cases where the specific cause of the accident cannot be definitively established.
Unlock the full brief for Butts v. Weisz