v. Bristol Lodge Corp., No. CIV.A. 01-612, 2002 WL 31859434, at *5 (II) (A) (E.D. Pa. 2002) (excluding proffered expert testimony regarding alleged deficiencies in security measures when witness “cite[d] to no industry standard for his opinions on the requisite necessities for adequate security” and did not “provide any explanation that could be tested or subjected to peer review as to how he has reached these opinions”); Newell v. Best Sec. Sys., Inc., 560 So2d 395, 397 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990) (upholding exclusion of expert testimony as to “propriety of security measures taken in light of the prior criminal activity in the area” when the opinion was not based upon valid underlying data). 16 See Ga. Bldg. Servs., Inc. v. Perry, 193 Ga. App. 288, 290 (1) (a) (387 SE2d 898) (1989) (<HOLDING>). 17 See id. (holding that trial court abused
holding trial court acted within its discretion in excluding expert testimony holding that trial court erred in excluding material testimony when court misapprehended partys awareness of witness holding that the trial court had erred by excluding the expert testimony of a doctor holding that a district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the testimony of a witness that was not highly probative holding that a trial court abused its discretion by excluding the testimony of an expert witness where the testimony would have been relevant to show that the defendant breached a duty of care