Giron v. Bailey, 985 A.2d 1003 (2009)

Citation: Giron v. Bailey, 985 A.2d 1003 (2009)
Parent Document: Giron v. Bailey, 985 A.2d 1003 (2009)
Jurisdiction: Rhode Island (state)
Effective Date: 2009-12-18
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2056478/giron-v-bailey/ ↗

Full Text

779 chars

On appeal, Bailey asks this Court to reverse the trial justice’s denial of her Rule 50 motion and to enter judgment as a matter of law in her favor. As grounds, Bailey argues that expert testimony was required to determine if the railing was defective, and if so, whether that defect was the proximate cause of Cayetano’s fall. Bailey argues that it was not within the jury’s common knowledge or experience to determine the cause of the railing’s failure. The Girons ask this Court to affirm the denial of Bailey’s Rule 50 motion because the trial justice correctly ruled that expert testimony was not required because there “was substantial, reliable and probative [evidence] for the jury to find, without expert testimony, that Jane Bailey was negligent.” II Standard of Review

Other Sections in This Document (56)

Full Text