This suit arises from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on September 7, 2018, in Vinton, Louisiana. Plaintiffs alleged that Billy Smith was operating a 2016 Kenworth T880 while traveling westbound on Interstate 10 on that date.
The vehicle was outfitted with Chinese-manufactured steel belt radial truck tires, distributed by CMA under the trade name “Double Coin tires.” The accident occurred when Smith’s tires suffered a catastrophic tread/belt separation, overturning the vehicle and severely injuring Smith. Smith passed away on September 4, 2021, and his surviving spouse and four adult children were substituted as Plaintiffs.
Defendants sought to introduce testimony from Dr. Richard W. Carr as an expert in the fields of trucking industry maintenance practices and trucking fleet and driver management standards. Carr offered opinions regarding alleged deficiencies in Smith’s licensure and driving conduct as well as in the maintenance of the vehicle and other practices by his employer, Kent & Smith Holdings, LLC.
Plaintiffs filed a motion to exclude Carr’s testimony under the standards set forth in Rule 702 and Daubert.
Transportation Safety Expert Witness
Richard W. Carr Ph.D., CDS is the principal of R W Carr, Inc., a Risk Management & Safety Consulting corporation based in Jacksonville, Florida, which primarily serves the transportation industry, construction industry, insurance industry, the legal profession, and the U.S. Government.
He has also worked as a Special Investigator and Accident Investigation Specialist for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. He has specialized training from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, Penn State University, Northwestern University, Kennedy Western University, Georgia Tech, the National Nuclear Security Administration, and others.
Carr holds a Ph.D in Safety Engineering and has served as an expert witness in several cases over the last four years.
Discussion by the Court
Richard Carr
Plaintiffs did not challenge Carr’s qualifications but instead maintained that he lacked an adequate basis for the following opinions: (1) Billy Smith was not properly licensed at the time of the incident and failed to report vibrations in the steering wheel; (2) Kent & Smith lacked an adequate preventative maintenance program given their operational conditions; (3) Kent & Smith improperly allowed a plugged tire to remain in use; (4) Kent & Smith failed to retain and secure documentation post-accident relating to the subject vehicle and Smith; and (5) Kent & Smith’s alleged carrier violations four years after the accident are evidence of a culture of committing carrier violations around the time of the accident.
Smith’s Licensure and Failure to Report Steering Wheel Vibrations
In his deposition Carr opined that he “did not believe Smith had a valid CDL driver’s license at the time of this accident” because the copy contained in his Kent & Smith driver record had an expiration date of September 5, 2018, with no indication of renewal. Carr admitted, however, that he could not say one way or another whether the license had been renewed and that he had made no independent attempt to verify renewal. In response, Plaintiffs showed that a Class A CDL was issued to Smith on June 18, 2018, with expiration date of September 05, 2024.
Defendants maintained that Carr nonetheless had an adequate basis to reach his conclusion on Smith’s license status, based on the contents of his Kent & Smith driver’s record. Even if Smith was properly licensed at the time of the accident, the fact that his employer’s records indicated he was not may fall short of the standard of care. Further, they complained that the valid driver’s license is not Bates-stamped and was never produced in discovery.
The Court agreed that the record provided an adequate basis for Carr to opine that there was no evidence in Kent & Smith’s files at the time of the accident that Billy Smith was properly licensed.
Plaintiffs argued that Carr assumed based on defense expert Michael Grima’s report that the steering wheel was vibrating and then further assumed from the lack of documentation that Smith felt these vibrations and failed to report them.
The Court found that Carr is adequately qualified to opine on not just if but how Smith should have reported this effect—by formally recording it in his inspection reports. As he noted, the purpose of the reports was to identify issues so that they could be repaired.
Inadequate Preventative Maintenance Program
Carr also criticized Kent & Smith for failing to maintain an adequate preventative maintenance program. He based his assumptions about the lack of adequate maintenance on the extent of wear and tear visible on the tires in photographs. He could not cite an industry standard or state specifically how often Kent & Smith should have been inspecting the tires of its fleet, noting that he did not have a copy of the company’s maintenance schedule. Instead, he described his own experience operating a truck over gravel and how it necessitated replacement of the tires after only 50,000 miles.
While Plaintiffs write this off as anecdotal, the Court held that Carr’s experience is highly relevant to the tires at issue and their working conditions, and he applied this lens when reviewing the photographs and maintenance records.
Allowing a Plugged Tire to Remain in Use
Carr noted that the right front steering tire had been plugged at least three times. Plaintiffs challenged this opinion because Carr never conducted a firsthand examination of the subject tire. But Carr reviewed photographs as well as the report of Grima, who found evidence of prior punctures.
As Defendants noted, “[e]very expert who has reviewed the tire has noted the numerous punctures on the tire, the stone drilling in the tire, and the wear of the tire. These facts are not in dispute.” In other words, Carr’s extrapolation, based on testimony that Plaintiffs failed to refute, that leaving such a tire on the steering axle violated Kent & Smith policy appeared to be on solid footing.
Failure to Retain and Secure Documentation
In his deposition Carr pointed to deficiencies in Kent & Smith’s record retention. Plaintiffs then pressed him as to whether any such failures contributed to the accident. Carr responded: “By them not providing documents, it did not contribute to the cause of the accident, but it might have inhibited or changed opinions, or aided in the scope and process of the ongoing litigation related and caused by the accident.”
Plaintiffs objected that this opinion was irrelevant because, as Carr admitted, any record retention deficiencies did not cause the accident. But, as he explained, the absence of records could have inhibited investigation of the accident and a discovery of its contributing factors. Additionally, the Court held that Carr is adequately qualified through his industry experience, including a stint as an investigator for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (“FMCSA”), to reach this opinion.
Kent & Smith’s Culture
Finally, Carr asserted in his deposition that Kent & Smith had a “culture” of violating safety regulations based on its record from August 2022 to August 2024. Plaintiffs thus moved to exclude this opinion, arguing that testimony regarding Kent & Smith’s subsequent violations is prohibited under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b).
Defendants made no argument in support of the relevance of the subsequent violations. The Court agreed that, even if they were offered for some purpose under Rule 404(b) other than showing Kent & Smith’s bad character, they have no probative value because they occurred four to six years subsequent to the subject accident. The motion is therefore granted to the extent that Carr is prohibited from referencing these violations or opining on Kent & Smith’s safety culture at the time of the accident based on its 2022-2024 record. This limitation, however, did not prevent Carr from opining on Kent & Smith’s compliance with DOT and FMCSA practices at the time of the accident based on other, more contemporaneous records.
Held
The Court granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs’ Daubert motion to exclude the testimony of Defendants’ expert Richard W. Carr.
Key Takeaways:
- Experts are permitted to rely on their own relevant experience—including anecdotal cases. It is the responsibility of opposing counsel to explore the factual basis for the opinion and thus, determine its reliability.
- An expert may rely on hearsay, including other expert reports, in forming his opinions. Although the Court found that Grima lacked an adequate basis for his main conclusions and that his testimony would not be helpful for the jury, there is no basis to doubt his findings as to the effects that the tire’s condition would have on the vehicle’s operations. Likewise, Carr was adequately qualified to opine on not just if but how Smith should have reported this effect—by formally recording it in his inspection reports.
Please refer to the blog previously published about this case:
Tire Expert’s Impact Damage Theory Admitted
Forensic Pathology Expert’s Conclusions About the Cause of Death Admitted
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Smith V. China Manufacturers Alliance LLC Et Al |
| Docket Number: | 2:19cv1111 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Louisiana Western |
| Order Date: | July 16, 2025 |
Leave a Reply