Rosenfeld v. Oceania Cruises, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that trial court erred in excluding expert testimony ″about whether the slip resistance of the flooring posed a danger to passengers aboard″ because subject was one that was beyond knowledge and experience of average juror
• explaining that “[a] qualified expert who uses reliable testing methodology may testify as to the safety of a defendant’s choice of flooring, determined by the surface’s coefficient of friction”
• describing the third inquiry - assistance to the factfinder - as ″helpfulness″ rather than ″relevance″ (quoting United States v. Frazier, 387 F.3d 1244, 1260 (11th Cir. 2004))
• admitting expert testimony characterized by the challenging party as being based on “incorrect” assumptions
• concerning the admission of expert testimony in slip- and-fall liability case
• “[I]n most cases, objections to the inadequacies of a study are more appropriately considered an objection going to the weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility.” (quoting Hemmings v. Tidyman’s Inc., 285 F.3d 1174, 1188 (9th Cir.2002)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).