Gutierrez v. St. Teresa of Avila Church

Background

Richard Daniel Gutierrez, as executor of Aida Norma Gutierrez’s estate, brought a negligence action against St. Teresa of Avila Church. The claim arose from Ms. Gutierrez’s fall in the Church’s basement women’s bathroom on December 14, 2019. Ms. Gutierrez, who was then 80 and had never previously visited the Church, did not see a step immediately inside the bathroom and fell. She suffered a subdural hematoma, underwent two surgeries, and spent several months in hospitals and rehabilitation. She later died, and her son became the executor and plaintiff in the case.

The complaint alleged that the Church negligently failed to inspect and maintain the bathroom, failed to repair the step, and failed to warn patrons about it. The parties disputed the step’s height, with estimates of three inches and four and a half inches, and disputed whether its location and appearance made it dangerous or likely to be overlooked. The court had subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Expert Testimony

The Church moved to exclude the testimony of the plaintiff’s expert, Edward W. Lindh, Jr., under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. The court rejected the argument that Lindh lacked sufficient qualifications. Lindh had about 30 years of construction experience and certifications in building codes and construction safety. The court explained that practical experience can qualify a witness as an expert even without a college degree, license, or formal training in the precise field at issue.

The court nevertheless granted the motion to exclude Lindh’s testimony. Lindh had never visited the Church. His conclusion that the step was three inches high relied on an ambiguous statement in a 2022 inspection report, and he did not independently measure or verify the step. His report also listed various building and safety codes, guidelines, and historical architectural texts without adequately explaining why they applied or supported his conclusions. The court found that the opinions were not based on reliable methods or a reliable application of Lindh’s experience to the facts.

The court also excluded the testimony because Lindh offered legal conclusions, including that the Church had a nondelegable duty, had notice of the danger, was negligent, and caused Ms. Gutierrez’s injuries. The court held that such conclusions would improperly tell the jury what result to reach.

Summary Judgment

The Church separately moved for summary judgment on the negligence claim. Summary judgment is appropriate only when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Applying New York law, the court explained that a negligence claim requires a duty, a breach of that duty, and an injury caused by the breach.

The court denied summary judgment. It found factual disputes about whether the step was open and obvious to a reasonable person, especially because it was located immediately inside the bathroom entrance and the entryway and raised floor used the same mosaic tile. The court also considered testimony that the Church had previously posted a warning sign because parishioners frequently tripped over the step. Although the Church disputed that testimony, the court stated that credibility questions belonged to the fact finder rather than the court at the summary-judgment stage.

The court also found disputes about whether the step was inherently dangerous. The parties disagreed about its height, the adequacy of the contrasting tile, its location, and whether prior falls had occurred. The court noted that compliance with building codes would be evidence of care but would not conclusively establish that the Church acted carefully.

The Church argued that Ms. Gutierrez’s inattention relieved it of any duty to warn. The court rejected that argument at this stage, explaining that inattention could be relevant to causation and comparative negligence but would not eliminate a duty to warn if the hazard was latent. The court further held that, because the Church created the permanent step and bathroom layout, it could not obtain summary judgment by arguing that it lacked notice of the condition. The court concluded that factual disputes remained about whether the condition was dangerous and whether the Church knew of the danger.

Disposition

The court’s motion ruling was granted in part and denied in part. The motion to exclude Lindh’s testimony was granted. The motion for summary judgment was denied. The court scheduled a case-management conference for October 8, 2025, and directed counsel to discuss settlement in good faith before that conference.