## Facts

- Eleanor M. Stagl, a Delta passenger, alleged she was injured at a Delta-operated baggage carousel at JFK Airport when another passenger pushing to retrieve luggage jostled her, causing her to fall.
- She claimed Delta negligently supervised and managed the baggage retrieval process, creating foreseeable congestion and jostling near the carousel.
- After an earlier appeal recognized Delta’s duty to maintain the luggage retrieval area in a reasonably safe condition and remanded for further proceedings, the case proceeded to a jury trial.
- At the close of Stagl’s case, the district court granted Delta judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50, reasoning that Stagl had not shown foreseeability because she offered no evidence of similar prior accidents.
- The district court also excluded substantial liability evidence, including proffered expert testimony from mechanical engineer Grahme Fischer regarding how the design and operation of the baggage system could create unsafe crowding conditions, and other testimony about congestion and jostling in the area.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court erred in requiring evidence of prior similar accidents as a prerequisite to submitting foreseeability and negligence to the jury.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by excluding Fischer’s expert testimony as unqualified under the Federal Rules of Evidence.
3. Whether the district court’s evidentiary rulings and Rule 50 disposition conflicted with the appellate mandate and law-of-the-case from the prior appeal recognizing a duty and triable issues.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit vacated the judgment as a matter of law and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held the district court erred by treating the absence of prior similar accidents as dispositive of foreseeability and negligence.
- The court held the exclusion of Fischer’s expert testimony was an abuse of discretion under the liberal expert-qualification standard.
- The court held the exclusion of other relevant testimony about conditions at the carousel improperly prevented the jury from considering evidence bearing on breach and foreseeability.
- The court concluded the district court’s approach was inconsistent with the prior appellate mandate that contemplated jury resolution of contested issues.

## Legal Principles

- Under New York negligence law, evidence of prior similar accidents may be relevant but is not a mandatory prerequisite to establishing foreseeability; circumstantial evidence and evidence of design/operational conditions may suffice.
- Expert qualification under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 is construed broadly; an expert may testify if their knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education can assist the trier of fact, even without industry-specific specialization.
- Relevant evidence concerning physical conditions and operating practices affecting crowding and passenger movement may be admissible to prove breach and foreseeability.
- Under the mandate rule and law-of-the-case doctrine, a trial court on remand may not impose proof requirements or evidentiary exclusions that effectively negate the appellate court’s prior determinations about duty and triable factual issues.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit restored the plaintiff’s opportunity to present her negligence theory to a jury, holding that foreseeability could be shown without proof of prior similar accidents and that the district court improperly excluded key expert and lay evidence and then entered judgment as a matter of law.


Stagl v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 117 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 1997)