Court: United State District Court for Western District of Kentucky, Louisville DivisionJurisdiction: FederalCase Name: Jackson v. E-Z-Go Div. of Textron, INC.Citation: 326 F. Supp 3d 375
Facts
On July 25, 2010, an E-Z-Go personnel carrier vehicle rolled over resulting in the death of 15-year-old Jordan Kori Jackson, one of the passengers. The parents of the deceased sued the manufacturers alleging design defects, failure to warn, and breach of express and implied warranties. The vehicle was owned by the parents of Jordan’s friend, Andrew. Jordan’s parents also sued Andrew’s parents alleging negligence for allowing their then-underage son and others to operate the vehicle on the day of the accident.
Both parties retained their respective expert witnesses and brought pre-trial motions to exclude the testimony of several opposing experts under Daubert and its progeny. However, the court’s primary ruling in the order was with respect to the plaintiff’s accident reconstruction expert witness.
The Accident Reconstruction Expert Witness
The plaintiff’s expert was a consulting engineer who specialized in accident reconstruction and safety analysis, electrical design safety and failure analysis, fire cause and origin, and vehicular traffic accidents.
In forming his opinions, the expert relied heavily on patents from 1980 and 1988 as well as the plaintiff’s other accident reconstruction expert’s opinions. The expert opined that, based on Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) data, the 8.9% of personnel carrier and golf cart-related injuries involving rollovers between 1991 and 1993 “must have involved many E-Z-GO products”.
The defendants moved to exclude his testimony arguing that he was neither qualified to offer the opinions included in his report nor did he use any sufficiently reliable principles and methods in reaching those opinions.
Held
The defendant’s motion to exclude the testimony of the plaintiff’s accident reconstruction expert was granted in part and denied in part.
The court found that the expert’s experience in the field of electrical engineering was extensive, and that his knowledge and experience qualified him to offer opinions, even though he didn’t have any specific experience with such technology. With respect to the expert’s opinion based on injuries in rollover accidents between 1991 and 1993, the court found the expert was unclear as to where these accidents had occurred, what company manufactured the vehicles, what model of vehicles were involved, what the weather conditions were, what the speed was, who was driving, and so on and hence this portion of defendant’s motion was granted.
With regard to the expert’s reliance on the other plaintiff expert’s opinion, the court held it to be permissible. Although an expert “may not adopt another expert’s opinions wholesale,” Siegel v. Fisher & Paykel Appliances Holdings Ltd., No. 3:08CV-429-JDM, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111578, pursuant to “Rule 703, an expert’s testimony may be formulated by the use of the facts, data, and conclusions of other experts.” Asad v. Cont’l Airlines, Inc., 314 F. Supp. 2d 726, 740. It was also determined that the expert’s reliance on patents from 1980 and 1988 was insufficient as he had not applied any expertise of his to interpret the complex language of the patent.
About the author
Zach Barreto
Zach Barreto is a distinguished professional in the legal industry, currently serving as the Senior Vice President of Research at the Expert Institute. With a deep understanding of a broad range of legal practice areas, Zach's expertise encompasses personal injury, medical malpractice, mass torts, defective products, and many other sectors. His skills are particularly evident in handling complex litigation matters, including high-profile cases like the Opioids litigation, NFL Concussion Litigation, California Wildfires, 3M earplugs, Elmiron, Transvaginal Mesh, NFL Concussion Litigation, Roundup, Camp Lejeune, Hernia Mesh, IVC filters, Paraquat, Paragard, Talcum Powder, Zantac, and many others.
Under his leadership, the Expert Institute’s research team has expanded impressively from a single member to a robust team of 100 professionals over the last decade. This growth reflects his ability to navigate the intricate and demanding landscape of legal research and expert recruitment effectively. Zach has been instrumental in working on nationally significant litigation matters, including cases involving pharmaceuticals, medical devices, toxic chemical exposure, and wrongful death, among others.
At the Expert Institute, Zach is responsible for managing all aspects of the research department and developing strategic institutional relationships. He plays a key role in equipping attorneys for success through expert consulting, case management, strategic research, and expert due diligence provided by the Institute’s cloud-based legal services platform, Expert iQ.
Educationally, Zach holds a Bachelor's degree in Political Science and European History from Vanderbilt University.
