Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
P was walking to her car in the Gateway Arch Parking Garage. The garage was operated by D. P was walking on an elevated area described as a 'pedestrian refuge area' which was a step higher than the parking area surface. P came to the point where the refuge area dropped down to the parking surface, lost her balance, and fell. At the time she fell, every other light was off in the parking garage, including the light above where she fell. P broke her shoulder, arm, and kneecap in the fall. It was garage policy that every other high sodium light be turned off during daylight hours. In the garage, curbs were painted optic yellow and parking spaces were marked with white lines. In her fifth amended petition P alleged that it was negligent in not lighting the drop-off or marking it with a yellow line. D called Millenbruck as an expert witness. Millenbruck is a civil engineer. At voir dire, the trial court had overruled P's objection to the admission of Exhibit I on the ground that there was an insufficient foundation of the validity of the software. Millenbruck testified to the foundation for Exhibit I before the jury. The trial court admitted Exhibit I into evidence over P's renewed objection that there was no foundation as to the validity of the program. Millenbruck testified that Exhibit I was a color computer plot that graphically depicted the intensity of the light levels on the garage floor where P fell. Millenbruck supervised the preparation of Exhibit I. As an engineer, he had the training to make the calculations represented by Exhibit I manually, however, it was not practical to do so because it was a very complex geometric calculation which would have to be repeated for every point resulting in a 'tremendous amount of hand calculations.' As an engineer Millenbruck used and relied on this type of software to make lighting decisions. Lighting Analysts, Inc.'s software program predicts the light level on any given horizontal surface based on the spacing of the lights, the mounting height, the wattage of the bulb, the source, and the nature of the bulb. Millenbruck provided and had personal knowledge of the data fed into the program. Millenbruck's results showed light levels less than actually present because P fell in the daytime and the garage did admit some natural light. Millenbruck also took actual light measurements in the garage and his readings generally conformed with the computer printout. Millenbruck testified that Exhibit I showed that the lighting where P fell was three to six-foot candles. He testified that in his opinion, three to six-foot candles provided sufficient lighting for a person to be able to see a curb. D got the verdict and P appealed. P claims that there was no adequate foundation for the validity of the software.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co