Plaintiff, Raul Rodriguez brought this suit to recover for personal injuries sustained by Plaintiff as a result of an accident which occurred on February 22, 2021 in Jal County, New Mexico on a well owned and operated by Defendant, Kaiser-Francis Oil Company. Rodriguez was an independent contractor attempting to open a ball valve on a skid mounted manifold which was built and maintained by Defendant, Flow Testing, Inc. on Defendant’s, Kaiser-Francis Oil Company, well when he fell causing personal injuries.
Pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 402, 403, and 702, Daubert v. MerrellDow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999), Defendants ask the Court to exclude any testimony by M. Brian McDonald, Ph.D., pertaining to the computation or quantification of hedonic damages, or loss of enjoyment of life damages, including any benchmark figure corresponding to the value of life, and any testimony related to Value of a Statistical Life (“VSL”) studies.
Economics Expert Witness
Brian McDonald is an economist who served as the director of the Bureau of Business and Economic Research (BBER) at the University of New Mexico (UNM) from 1982 to 2000. Brian Earned his B.A. in economics from Georgetown University and went on to earn his Ph.D. in economics from The University of Pennsylvania
During his tenure as director, McDonald oversaw research on the economic conditions of New Mexico, including analyzing the state’s energy sector, labor market, and income distribution. He also led efforts to expand the BBER’s outreach to the broader community by establishing partnerships with government agencies, businesses, and other organizations to provide economic analysis and forecasting.
Discussion by the Court
Plaintiff agreed that McDonald may not testify to a specific number or range for Plaintiff’s hedonic damages but argues that Defendants’ proposed limits on McDonald’s testimony are overbroad.
Judge M. Christina Armijo excluded any attempt by McDonald to quantify the Plaintiff’s hedonic damages because “the majority rule in federal courts … is that expert testimony which places a dollar figure before the jury in an attempt to quantify the value of a human life is inadmissible and does not meet the relevance and reliability factors set forth in Daubert and its progeny.”
The Court found Judge Armijo’s analysis persuasive and adopted it herein. In conclusion, McDonald’s testimony relating to hedonic damages will be limited to explaining the meaning of hedonic damages and areas of human experience that the jury may consider in quantifying such damages. The Court will not permit McDonald to provide any quantification of Plaintiff’s loss of enjoyment of life or to testify about the statistical value of life or studies related thereto because such testimony would be irrelevant, unreliable, and unfairly prejudicial. Nor will the Court permit McDonald to testify about or explain the caselaw regarding hedonic damages that he discusses at length in his report.
Held
The Court granted the Defendant’s motion to exclude any testimony by M. Brian McDonald insofar as McDonald may not testify about caselaw on hedonic damages but he may testify about other aspects of hedonic damages, including its definition and a general explanation of the components of an individual’s life that the trier of fact may consider in deciding whether to award hedonic damages and, if so, in what amount.
Key Takeaway:
It is well settled in the Tenth Circuit that an expert may not testify about his quantification of the value of Plaintiff’s hedonic damages. However, an economist expert may testify about the meaning of hedonic damages, how they differ from other damages, and areas of human experience to be considered in determining hedonic damages.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Rodriguez V. Kaiser-Francis Oil Company Et Al |
| Docket Number: | 1:22cv32 |
| Court: | United States District Court, New Mexico |
| Order Date: | September 19, 2024 |
Leave a Reply