In a non-precedential decision, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, in Peterson v. Stacy’s Pizza, Inc., 2025 Pa. Super. Unpub. Lexis 108, 2025 WL 88444 (Jan. 14, 2025), reviewed a premises liability case in which Plaintiff, a delivery driver, was injured by a falling security door while making a delivery at Stacy’s Pizza. The Superior Court determined that, without the necessary expert testimony, Plaintiff’s claims failed and upheld the nonsuit in favor of Stacey’s Pizza.
At trial, Plaintiff retained an expert witness to offer testimony regarding causation of Plaintiff’s injuries. During examination, the causation expert opined that “to a reasonable degree of engineering certainty . . . the downward movement of the door was more likely than not” the cause of Plaintiffs injuries. Shortly after the testimony, Stacy’s Pizza objected to the expert’s foundation, specifically arguing that Plaintiffs expert failed to offer his opinion within a reasonably degree of certainty. The trial court heard arguments on the matter, and found that the opinion was not offered within the requisite degree of reasonable certainty; therefore, the testimony was inadmissible. The trial court then concluded that without the causation testimony, Plaintiff could not establish the causation element of his negligence claim and subsequently entered a judgment of nonsuit. After the judgement, a timely appeal followed.
On appeal, a significant aspect of the Superior Court’s opinion focused on the exclusion of Plaintiff’s expert testimony, and the sufficiency of evidence permitting the judgement of nonsuit. As to the first issue, Plaintiff argued that the trial court erred in precluding his causation expert from offering his testimony, because the trial court failed to consider the entirety of the expert’s testimony within the context of evidence the Plaintiff intended to introduce. The Plaintiff further argued that had the trial court permitted his expert to testify in his entirety, then the testimony would have been given within “a reasonable degree of professional certainty.”
The Superior Court rejected the Plaintiff’s argument, reasoning that the admissibility of expert testimony is the sole discretion of the trial court. The Superior Court reasoned that to be admissible testimony, a qualified expert witness must offer their opinion within a reasonable degree of certainty. The Superior Court found that the expert testimony offered at trial opined that the improper maintenance of the security door was “more likely than not” the cause of the Plaintiff’s injury. The Court further explained that all the opinion in fact stated was that the Appellee’s improper maintenance was more likely than not was the cause. Accordingly, the Superior Court found that Plaintiff’s expert did not opine to a reasonable degree of mechanical certainty, the improper maintenance of the door caused the injury. Therefore, the Superior Court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the expert testimony was not actually within the requisite degree of certainty, and properly excluded its admission.
Ultimately, the Superior Court affirmed the judgement of nonsuit in favor of Stacy’s Pizza, finding that the record did not contain sufficient evidence to prove each of the elements of Plaintiff’s negligence claim. The Superior Court further explained that because the Plaintiff rested his case when it became clear that a fatal expert exclusion would cause a nonsuit, and did not present any evidence of damages, any error would have been harmless in any event.
The Peterson decision can be found here.
For additional information, contact Conrad J. Benedetto, Esq. and/or Leilani Brown, Esq.
This article was prepared by McCormick & Priore, P.C. to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is in no way intended to provide legal advice or to create an attorney-client relationship. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of McCormick & Priore, P.C.
