Help

BI’s Article search uses Boolean search capabilities. If you are not familiar with these principles, here are some quick tips.

To search specifically for more than one word, put the search term in quotation marks. For example, “workers compensation”. This will limit your search to that combination of words.

To search for a combination of terms, use quotations and the & symbol. For example, “hurricane” & “loss”.

Login Register Subscribe

Expert unnecessary in falling wine bottle case

Reprints
Lawsuit

An expert was not needed in a negligence case filed against Costco Wholesale Corp., in a case where a customer claimed he was injured when a wine bottle fell off a conveyor belt, says a federal appeals court, in a divided opinion that overturns a lower court ruling.

“This was a straightforward state law negligence claim,” said the majority opinion of a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco in Robert Johnson v. Costco Wholesale Corp.

The decision overturned a ruling by the U.S. District Court in Phoenix that granted Issaquah, Washington-based Costco summary judgment dismissing the case.

“Johnson claimed that he was injured by a bottle of Prosecco that fell off the conveyor belt.  All he needed to overcome Costco summary  judgment motion was establish plausibly by facts supported by admissible evidence at least a genuine issue of material fact, such that a jury could conclude that his injury was caused by Costco’s negligence,” the ruling said.

“The district court was of the view that he needed expert testimony, and he submitted none,” the opinion said.  But, “All Johnson needs to avoid summary judgment is cognizable evidence for a prima facie case. 

“Had he been making an esoteric case outside the ordinary experience of most people – for example, that something about the conveyor belt was faulty – he might have needed the opinion of someone knowledgeable about conveyor belt motors.

“But nothing in his papers suggests that he was.  This seems to be a simple case of a bottle falling off an ordinary conveyor belt at the checkout counter,” the ruling said, in reversing the lower court’s decision and remanding the case for further proceedings.

The dissenting opinion would affirm the district court’s determination expert testimony was needed to determine whether Costco “breached the appropriate standard of care.”

According to the record, the conveyor belt’s guardrail was estimated to be between one and six inches in height, the dissent said.  “Who will inform the jurors of the range of guardrail heights within the industry, and what is a minimum and maximum height consistent with best practices? These are the sort of questions usually addressed by experts.”

One of Mr. Johnson’s attorneys, Phoenix-based Calvin L. Raup, said in a statement, “We are now back in District Court to pursue Costco. Mr. Johnson has serious, disabling injuries. He can no longer work as a firefighter/engineer.”

Costco attorneys did not respond to a request for comment.

 

 

 

 

Read Next

  • Tiffany trademark ring ruling vs. Costco overturned

    A federal appeals court Monday overturned a $21 million verdict against Costco Wholesale Corp. for trademark infringement over its marketing of diamond rings labeled as “Tiffany,” ruling that the lower court judge who had issued an initial ruling in the case had failed to adequately consider contrary evidence.