This case takes place in Indiana and involves a dispute over land usage. The plaintiff owns property consisting of a truck stop, while the defendant owns property adjacent to this truck stop and wanted to develop a commercial building. The plaintiff claims they need the entire easement in order for trucks to access and leave the truckstop. The issue pertains to the route truckers are taking, coming off the road that runs in front of both properties and whether the tractor trailers can make certain maneuvers through different routes around the easement area. The defendant maintains that they will leave enough room for customers to be able to access the truck stop premises. The defendant needs an expert in property management to examine the area and perform certain maneuvers to determine the various access areas to the truck stop and if there are alternative routes through the easement area that would not require the entire space.

Expert Evaluates Truck Stop Land Usage Dispute

 Burke v. TranSam Trucking, Inc., 617 F. Supp. 2d 327 (M.D. Pa. 2009)

 This case arises from a vehicle accident involving the commercial tractor trailer driven by Gregory Wirfel (“Defendant Wirfel”) and the 2000 Ford Ranger pickup truck driven by James Burke (“Plaintiffs”). At all times relative to this accident, Defendant Wirfel was employed by TransAm Trucking, Inc. (“Defendant “TransAm”). Plaintiffs alleged Defendant Wirfel and Defendant TransAm (collectively referred to as “Defendants”) were liable to them for damages resulting from the accident.

 Plaintiffs obtained the services of Dr. Ziejewski, a biomechanic and kinesiology expert witness, in order to determine if the forces exerted on Plaintiff in this accident were sufficient to cause injuries. Dr. Ziejewski based his medical opinions on the police report, complaint, witness statements, medical records, and photographs.

Dr. Ziejewski also obtained the vehicle parameters for a 2000 Ford Ranger (Plaintiff’s vehicle) and a 2005 Freightliner (Defendants’ Tractor Trailer); obtained and measured an exemplar 2000 Ford Ranger; performed laboratory compression testing; performed vehicle dynamics analysis; utilized Armstrong Laboratory/Wright-Patterson Air Force Base (AL/WPAFB) computer program to analyze this data; determined the geometric and mass properties of Plaintiff’s body segments and joint locations and range of motion characteristics using the Generator of Body Data (GEBOD) AL/WPAFB computer program and performed dynamic analysis for the collision using this program.

After conducting his analysis and testing, and reviewing numerous articles and studies, Dr. Ziejewski came to the following conclusions “within a reasonable degree of biomechanical engineering certainty”:

(1) the forces on James Burke’s head resulting from the collision on April 10, 2006 were sufficient to cause a brain injury;

(2) the forces on James Burke’s cervical region resulting from the collision on April 10, 2006 were sufficient to cause a cervical region injury;

(3) the results from the biomechanical analysis of the collision on April 10, 2006 involving James Burke are consistent with the medical opinions and findings indicating a brain injury; and

(4) the results from the biomechanical analysis of the collision on April 10, 2006 involving James Burke are consistent with the medical opinions and findings indicating a cervical region injury.

 Defendants moved to preclude Dr. Ziejewski from offering into evidence any testimony, reports or opinions at trial because his opinions exceeded the scope of his expertise, lacked a reliable factual foundation, and lacked scientific reliability. 

First, the Court found that Dr. Ziejewski was well qualified as a biomechanical expert. Dr. Ziejewski was a professor of mechanical engineering at North Dakota State University, an adjunct professor of neuroscience at the University of North Dakota School of Medicine, and director of the Impact Biomechanical Laboratory and the Automotive Systems Laboratory at North Dakota State University’s College of Engineering. He had specialized knowledge, skill and training in the field of biomechanics and had continually been recognized as a biomechanic expert in many courts throughout the country for twenty-five years.

Defendants also argued that Dr. Ziejewski’s opinion that the forces Plaintiff sustained in the subject collision were sufficient to cause a brain injury and a cervical region injury were actually a medical opinon, and should therefore be precluded because this goes beyond his expertise as a biomechanic. The Plaintiffs disagreed and asserted that Dr. Ziejewski’s opinion as to the potential injuries that could be sustained in the subject accident is a biomechanical determination based on established biomechanical parameters, not a medical opinion. The Court found that Dr. Ziejewski’s testimony fell within his expertise and therefore that he was qualified to testify on it. In conducting his analysis, Dr. Ziejewski stayed within this area of expertise and relied on biomechanical parameters in forming his opinions. As a biomechanical engineer, Dr. Ziejewski was qualified to opine on general causation, but not specific causation.This meant that Dr. Ziejewski could not testify as to the extent of injuries suffered by Plaintiff, which would require the identification and diagnosis of a medical condition, but could testify that the force sustained by Plaintiff in the subject accident could potentially cause certain injuries as this amounts to a biomechanical determination.

The Court also found that Dr. Ziejewski met the reliability requirement of the 

 analysis. The Court found that Dr. Ziejewski’s opinions were based on “methods and procedures” rather than subjective belief or unsupported speculation and that he had “good grounds” for his beliefs. Based on Dr. Ziejewski’s testimony at the hearing, the Court found that Dr. Ziejewski’s methodology fell in line with the facts that a district court should take into account in evaluating whether a particular scientific methodology is reliable under Daubert. Specifically, the Court found Dr. Ziejewski’s methodology consisted of testable hypothesis, was subjected to peer review, had a known or potential rate of error, was generally accepted, and the techniques were sufficiently established to be reliable.

As the Court noted during the hearing, many of Defendants’ arguments and criticisms of Dr. Ziejewski’s methodology and inputs used went more to the weight of the evidence, rather than to his ability to testify as an expert in this case. Mere weakness in the factual basis of an opinion bears on the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility. At trial, Defendants wouldl have the opportunity to demonstrate why Dr. Ziejewski’s conclusions should not be credited or given substantial weight. However, at this stage the Court was satisfied that Plaintiffs had sufficiently met their burden in establishing the reliability of this testimony.

Biomechanics Expert Witness Opines on Truck Accident

This case takes place in Georgia and involves an accident on a highway. The plaintiff, a fifty-three year old male, was driving from New York City to Boston at 3 AM. While driving, the plaintiff’s vehicle slid over a patch of black ice, went into the adjacent lane, and rotated 180 degrees before it came to a stop. The tractor-trailer in the adjacent lane did not stop in time and struck the plaintiff’s vehicle. The driver of the tractor-trailer claimed that when the vehicle rotated 180 degrees, he saw that it was in his lane, and applied the brakes. He also claimed that he started applying the brakes one hundred feet from where the plaintiff came to a stop. The plaintiff sustained serious injuries, and brought suit against the tractor-trailer’s driver and company for negligent driving and inadequate training. Plaintiff retained an expert in vehicle accident reconstruction.

Accident on Highway Leads to Serious Injury

This case takes place in Nebraska and involves an incident in which a piece of farming equipment electrocuted its owner while he was attempting to make repairs. The tractor was fairly new and had been maintained per the manufacturer’s recommendations for the duration of its use. One on occasion, the tractor broke down while being used to plant fresh crops on the farm. The farmer, who had an extensive working knowledge of tractors and farm equipment repairs, attempted to fix the machine himself. After returning the machine to a large garage on his property, the farmer began disassembling the tractor motor in order to access components that he believed were the cause of the issue. Suddenly and without warning, the man was injured by a powerful electric shock, resulting in serious burns to his arms. It is claimed that the tractor manufacturer should have been aware of the risk of electrical shock when attempting this particular repair, and that they failed to provide adequate warning to customers. An expert in equipment appraisal was sought to opine for this issue.

Tractor Manufacturer Fails to Warn of Danger During Maintenance Procedure

This case involves a tractor-trailer accident in North Dakota involving multiple commercial vehicles. The accident occurred when a driver lost control of his truck and crashed on the side of the road, with part of the trailer still in the roadway. As a result, multiple subsequent crashes occurred, including the plaintiff’s vehicle. The Plaintiff’s estate alleged that department of transportation failed to properly maintain the roadway for hazardous weather conditions, failed to warn drivers of adverse weather conditions, and failed to adequately cease its plows from driving through an accident scene.

Traffic Engineering Expert Witnesses Opine on Multi-Vehicle Tractor Trailer Accident

This case involves an accident in which a young child was run over by a ride on lawnmower. The 4 year old girl had been playing in the backyard of her parents’ home at the time of the accident, while her father was mowing the lawn on a popular brand of ride-on lawnmower. The model of tractor that the father was riding had a reverse mechanism that allowed the blades to continue to run even while the mower was operated in reverse. At the time of the accident, the victim’s father was backing up the lawnmower in order to navigate around a stump in the lawn. The child was behind the lawnmower when her father backed over her with the mower blades still spinning, causing significant, life-altering injuries.

Tractor Expert Witnesses

Find an expert witness near you

Tractor Posts

Expert Evaluates Truck Stop Land Usage Dispute

Biomechanics Expert Witness Opines on Truck Accident

Accident on Highway Leads to Serious Injury

Tractor Manufacturer Fails to Warn of Danger During Maintenance Procedure

Traffic Engineering Expert Witnesses Opine on Multi-Vehicle Tractor Trailer Accident

Mechanical Engineering Experts Opine on Unsafe Riding Mower Design

Connect with the Tractor expert witness you need to win your case