Judith A. Buscaglia v. United States

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that questions of fact existed “on the theory that the composition of the floor, either by itself or in combination with an accumulation of water, caused [the plaintiff’s] injury”
• finding that expert testimony as to tile floor being unreasonably slippery was sufficient to create a triable issue of fact
• finding that an expert’s coefficient of friction testing performed on tile from replacement stock rather than original tile went to weight and not admissibility
• finding that the plaintiff presented a sufficient factual basis to survive a motion for summary judgment on theory that the composition of the floor in combination with an accumulation of water caused the slip, fall and sustain injury
• “[E]xpert testimony may be excluded if it . . . [is] based upon speculation, unsupported assumptions, or conclusory allegations.”
• clear error to exclude expert witness affidavit; court erred by discounting probative value of affidavit while significantly overstating risk of unfair prejudice and confusion from admission

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).