Court – United State District Court for the middle District of Pennsylvania Jurisdiction – Federal Daubert Factor Involved – Qualification Case Stage – Pre Trial Ruling Type – Daubert Ruling Case Name – Knecht v. Balanescu Citation – 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178874
Rule 702 makes its mandatory that relevant expert testimony “must be supported by appropriate validation.”
Facts
This case involved a road accident where the plaintiff’s Ford Focus collided with a tractor-trailer that the defendant was operating. The plaintiff claimed that while he was driving on I-80, the defendant struck him from behind, causing an accident that resulted in severe injuries, necessary surgeries, and memory loss. The defendant countered that the plaintiff passed him from the right lane, lost control of his vehicle, came to a rest perpendicular across the travel lanes, and was struck on the passenger side by his truck when he could not stop in time to avoid the crash. The defendant also cited the report prepared by Trooper Edward Shannon in support of his claims.
Accident Reconstruction Expert Testimony
Before trial, the parties filed multiple motions in limine, which included a motion by the defendant to preclude any evidence or testimony regarding the alleged occurrence of a pursuit intervention technique (“PIT”) maneuver. The PIT, or the forced rotation of a moving vehicle, is a precision maneuver, which involves intentional, vehicle-to-vehicle contact and consists of a pursuing officer applying lateral pressure with the front corner of their vehicle to the rear quarter panel of the fleeing suspect’s vehicle, resulting in a predictable spin.
At the magisterial hearing regarding the citations issued to plaintiff as a result of the subject accident, Trooper Shannon had testified regarding the possible indication of a PIT-type maneuver on the vehicle. Relying solely on this testimony, Dr. Frank Gomer (designated as a Human Factors Engineering expert by the plaintiff), concluded that the PIT was the cause of the accident.
The court noted that Trooper Shannon had simply indicated the possibility of PIT and at no time had he concluded that the PIT caused the accident. It was also noted that Trooper Shannon was neither qualified nor identified as an accident reconstruction expert witness in this case.
The Court noted, citing Withrow v. Spears, 967 F. Supp. 2d 982 at 992, that “Rule 702 mandates that the relevant expert testimony “must be supported by appropriate validation—i.e., ‘good grounds,’ based on what is known.” It was also noted that “in examining this requirement, a court’s focus must be on “principles and methodology” rather than on the conclusions generated by the expert.”
Dr. Gomer’s testimony seemed to fall short of this mandate under Rule 702 since it was based wholly on the accident reconstruction expert witness testimony of Trooper Shannon, which itself was speculative, at best. The court also noted that Dr. Gomer was identified as a human factors and safety engineering expert and his opinion on use of a PIT- maneuver encroached on the subject area of accident reconstruction and hence should not be taken into consideration.
Held
It was held that the use and application of PIT type maneuver was not within the ordinary knowledge and expertise of a layperson and required expert testimony. Mr. Shannon had not been identified or qualified as an expert in the area of accident reconstruction, and his testimony about the possibility of a PIT- type maneuver occurring was merely speculative. The court noted that it was a well-established principle of law that an “investigating police officer who did not witness an accident may not render an opinion at trial as to its cause unless he or she has been qualified as an expert”.
The defendants motion in limine to preclude the evidence of the alleged occurrence of a Pursuit Intervention Technique Maneuver was granted.
About the author
