Safety Expert’s Clarified Opinions Excluded

This case arises out of a slip-and-fall incident that occurred at US Bank’s branch office in Kirkland, Washington, on December 7, 2020. Carol Hummel alleges that she fell in the parking lot and suffered injuries as a result of US Bank’s failure to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition.

Defendants U.S. Bancorp and U.S. Bank National Association (together, “US Bank”) filed a motion to exclude the testimony of Plaintiff Carol Hummel’s expert, Tom Baird.

Safety Expert Witness

Tom Baird is a Certified Forensic Consultant, Certified Walkway Safety Auditor, and Certified Floor Safety Technician. He serves on the National Floor Safety Institute’s Committee on the Identification and Elimination of Interior and Exterior Trip Hazards on Walking Surfaces, Stairs, Steps, and Ramps.

Want to know more about the challenges Tom Baird has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report.

Discussion by the Court

US Bank asserted that Baird’s testimony should be excluded because (1) his methodology is not sufficiently reliable, as it does not rely on “scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge,” and (2) his testimony is not relevant and therefore would not assist the trier of fact.

1. Baird’s testimony is sufficiently reliable

Baird submitted a preliminary opinion report, which constitutes his sole expert report. The report includes exhibits such as photographs of Hummel’s injuries, photographs and Google Maps images of the US Bank location where the incident occurred, and photographs and a slope measurement obtained during a site visit.

US Bank contended that Baird’s methodology is unreliable because it is not grounded in science or technical data and is instead backward-looking and conclusory, failing to establish a causal basis or connection.

The Court disagreed. Baird’s credentials and experience demonstrate that he is qualified to offer the nine challenged opinions. In forming his opinions, Baird relied on multiple sources, including an interview with Ms. Hummel, a review of photographs of her injuries and the incident location, and a site inspection conducted by one of his associates on September 8, 2023. The Court found that reliability in this matter depended heavily on Baird’s specialized knowledge and experience rather than strictly scientific or technical data.

2. Baird’s testimony is relevant

The parties also disputed whether Baird’s testimony would assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence or determining a fact in issue.

The Court concluded that the knowledge underlying Baird’s expert report bears a valid connection to the issues in the case and logically advances a material aspect of the dispute. It rejected US Bank’s argument that the testimony would “muddle the issues at trial” or “mislead the trier of fact.” Because the Court itself is the trier of fact, it determined that it could appropriately evaluate and weigh Baird’s opinions.

3. Baird’s New Declaration violates Rule 26(a)(2)(B)

US Bank argued that the Court should reject Baird’s new declaration, which Hummel included with her response to US Bank’s motion, because it violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) by “introducing additional factual assertions, new methodologies, and additional training and experience not in Baird’s original report.”

The deadline for expert disclosures was October 9, 2024. The Court held that Hummel may not supplement Baird’s report through a new declaration filed after the disclosure deadline.

Accordingly, the Court strictly limited Baird’s testimony to the nine opinions set forth in his expert report and the previously disclosed supporting facts. He may not offer additional or clarified opinions beyond those properly disclosed.

Held

The Court denied US Bank’s motion to exclude the testimony of Tom Baird, but limited that testimony to the opinions and facts set forth in Baird’s preliminary opinion report.

Key Takeaway

An expert opinion is relevant “if the knowledge underlying it has a valid connection to the pertinent inquiry.” Here, Baird’s specialized knowledge and experience were sufficiently connected to the facts of the case to assist the trier of fact.

Case Details:

Case Caption:	Hummel V. U.S. Bancorp
Docket Number:	2:23cv1915
Court Name:	United States District Court, Washington Western
Order Date:	January 29, 2026