`**E-FILED**
`17EV005390
`5/23/2019 4:47 PM
`LeNora Ponzo, Clerk
`Civil Division
`
`IN THE STATE COURT OF FULTON COUNTY
`STATE OF GEORGIA
`
`REBECCA HOLT, Individually, and
`MICHAEL HOLT, Individually and as the
`Administrator of the Estate of CHARLES
`WOODY HOLT,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`STARWOOD HOTELS & RESORTS
`WORLDWIDE, LLC, formerly known as
`STARWOOD HOTELS & RESORTS
`WORLDWIDE, INC., and SLC ATLANTA
`LLC, formerly known as WESTIN
`PORTMAN PEACHTREE II L.L.C.
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`Civil Action File No. 17EV005390
`
`ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
`MOTION TO EXCLUDE EDWARD PRIBONIC, P.E.
`
`This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ motion to exclude Edward Pribonic, P.E.
`
`under O.C.G.A. § 24-7-702. Plaintiffs identified Mr. Pribonic as an expert in the field of safety,
`
`engineering, and forensic analysis. His expertise includes extensive experience with amusement
`
`park rides and other mechanical structures that move. The admissibility of expert testimony is
`
`governed by O.C.G.A. § 24-7-702 and the Daubert opinion. Under Georgia law, there are five
`
`prerequisites to the admissibility of an expert opinion. First, the opinion must be of some
`
`scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge that is relevant and will "assist the trier of
`
`fact." O.C.G.A. § 24-9-7-702 (b). Second, it must be shown that the expert is qualified "by
`
`knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education." Id. Not only must the expert be qualified,
`
`but he "'must be qualified as to the relevant area of expertise."' Smith v. Liberty Chrysler-
`
`Plymouth-Dodge, Inc., 285 Ga. App. 606, 608 (2007) (quoting Johnson v. Kenebel, 267 Ga. 853,
`
`
`
`857 (1997)). Third, the testimony must be "based upon sufficient facts or data" which are, or will
`
`be, admitted into evidence at trial. O.C.G.A. § 24-7-702(b)(1). Fourth, the testimony must be
`
`"the product of reliable principles and methods." O.C.G.A. § 24-7-702(b)(2). Fifth, the witness
`
`must "appl[y] the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case." O.C.G.A. § 24-7-702
`
`(b)(3).
`
`The parties have filed extensive briefing on these issues and presented oral argument to
`
`the Court on May 10, 2019. Having considered the briefs, arguments of counsel, evidence, and
`
`all other matters of record, the Court finds as follows:
`
`Defendants’ motion requests to exclude Mr. Pribonic’s opinions on multiple grounds.
`
`The Court finds based upon the totality of the evidence that Plaintiffs have met their burden of
`
`proving that Mr. Pribonic is qualified; his opinions are based upon reliable principles and
`
`methods; and his opinions will assist the trier of fact.
`
`For all these reasons, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to exclude the testimony of
`
`Edward Pribonic, P.E.
`
`So ORDERED, this 23rd day of May, 2019.
`
`Hon. Jay Roth
`Judge, State Court of Fulton County
`Division A
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
