Court: United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Urbana DivisionJurisdiction: FederalCase Name: Recker v. Greif Packaging L.L.C. Citation: 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 225884
The plaintiff claimed that the defendant, a third-party employer, was negligent. The defendant retained a construction expert witness to opine on the accident. However, the plaintiff challenged the expert’s report.
Facts
The plaintiff husband was in the employment of a third-party defendant as a mechanic. His work involved moving damaged semi-trailers to the mechanic’s shop from a holding area, where he would repair them. The left door of the defendant’s trailer was opened for maintenance. During this time, a stack of cardboard boxes came off the truck and landed on the plaintiff, causing him injury. The plaintiff and his wife then lodged a complaint against the defendant, claiming negligence and loss of consortium. The defendant hired a construction expert witness to support its case, which the plaintiffs challenged.
The Defendant’s Construction Expert Witness
The construction expert witness was a senior construction safety & health consultant. The expert held a bachelor’s degree in occupational safety and health as well as a bachelor’s degree in occupational technology. He investigates and manages projects involving safety issues in industrial/commercial and home construction environments. The expert also evaluates incident-related projects and factors related to causing the incident. He had considerable experience in all major facets of construction. This included fall protection, rigging, scaffolding, crane operations, lock-out/tag-out, excavations, and electrical. Furthermore, he is a construction health and safety technician. Additionally, he is a certified safety professional and an authorized OSHA Outreach Instructor for construction courses.
The construction expert witness’s report contained a number of opinions. Firstly, he concluded that the plaintiff could have avoided the accident if the plaintiff had complied with the common-sense safety rules for protecting himself while opening the trailer. The expert also noted that the accident wouldn’t have happened if the plaintiff had complied with the shipping industry’s standard for checking the stability/location of the cargo prior to opening the ramp. Second, the expert found that the plaintiff’s employer had neglected to provide him with the training and oversight necessary to ensure he was not harmed, as required by Section 5(a)(1) of the OSH Act. Third, he stated that the defendant was not responsible for the load actually shifting while in transit. According to the expert, it was the responsibility of the third-party defendant’s driver to get the load reconfigured or request load straps.
The plaintiffs challenged his expert report. They alleged that he hadn’t acquired the education, training, experience, skill, or knowledge to qualify as an expert to offer the opinions.
Discussion
The court noted that in compliance with the Federal Rules of Evidence’s Rule 702, the expert’s decision must be based on reliable principles and methodology. The court found no indication that his opinions on safe trucking practices complied with this standard. The expert’s expertise was primarily in construction safety, and he had no proven experience in trucking and load safety practices. The court observed that the expert had seen load locks. However, he had never kept one or even seen one of them added to a truck. The court thus prohibited him from testifying on safe trailer loading standards based on the trucking industry guidelines and applicable legislation, and on the defendant’s freight safety policies.
The court found the expert qualified enough to offer his opinion on OSHA standards and whether there was any breach of the same. However, the court prohibited him from testifying about legal obligations and compliance related to OSHA. The court also barred him from deriving conclusions from contested facts. Additionally, the court prohibited the expert from testifying about who was ultimately responsible for the accident. According to the court, it was an opinion suggesting a conclusion that the jury should reach.
Ruling
The court granted and denied in part the plaintiffs’ motion to exclude the testimony of the construction expert witness.
Key Takeaways for Experts
This case illustrates the importance of avoiding stating legal conclusions. An expert’s testimony helps the judge or jury understand the facts of the case by providing clarity on specialized issues. As such, it’s critical that experts remain focused on the facts. In this case, the court denied parts of the expert’s opinion on legal obligations. The court also prohibited the expert from opining on who was responsible for the accident. In the end, the expert can’t tell the jury what result to reach. However, experts can discuss the evidence that can help the jury reach a conclusion.
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.
