In Faxel v. Wilderness Hotel & Resort, Inc., No. 21-1967 (W.D. Wis. August 15, 2024), plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the defendant alleging negligence, premises liability, and loss of consortium after plaintiff was injured on a water slide at the defendant’s hotel. The scheduling order set a deadline for the Faxels to disclose their liability expert, but the date came and went with no disclosure. Almost three months later, they sought an extension of time to name an expert. A magistrate judge, presiding by consent, denied the motion. The district court then granted the defendant’s subsequent motion for summary judgment after the plaintiff failed to disclose a liability expert, finding that plaintiffs could not prove their claims without expert testimony.
Plaintiff appealed and the Seventh Circuit affirmed, explaining that the hotel’s duty of care depended on what is reasonably required of water-park operators and that this required specialized knowledge and expertise so that plaintiffs could not prove their claims without expert testimony. The Court stated: “The hotel’s duty of care depends on what is reasonably required of water-park operators regarding the safety protocols, inspection, and maintenance of water slides like this one. These questions require specialized knowledge and expertise; they are not within the common knowledge of jurors. It follows that without expert testimony, the Faxels cannot prove their claims.”