This action involves a motor vehicle accident in which James Francis O’Rourke was killed. Plaintiff, as Personal Representative of the Estate of O’Rourke, alleged that Defendants caused the accident by the negligent and wanton transportation of a superload in Alabama. The superload and a vehicle operated by O’Rourke collided on a bridge.
Plaintiff proffered Travis Gourley as an accident reconstructionist. Gourley obtained data which inform his opinions. He collected EDR information from both O’Rourke’s car and the superload, the GPS and Garmin data from the superload, and photographs of the accident scene. Gourley visited the scene in the daytime and nighttime, reviewed dash camera footage from the superload and an escort vehicle. He reviewed security camera footage from two businesses along the designated route.
Defendants filed a motion to strike several of Gourley’s opinions. They first challenged his opinion that O’Rourke’s vehicle was likely not stopped on the roadway shoulder prior to the accident. Defendants characterized this opinion as speculative and conjectural. However, they acknowledged that Gourley based his opinion on physical evidence, the acceleration and deceleration capabilities of O’Rourke’s vehicle, the relative spacing of the vehicles in the superload escort convoy as depicted in surveillance and dash camera video, and the time between the superload driver being informed of oncoming vehicles and the moment of impact.
Defendants argued that Gourley’s opinions should be stricken because he made assumptions for which he “performed no real-world testing or simulations,” and failed to account for alternative variables and other witness testimony.
Accident Reconstruction Expert Witness
Travis R. Gourley holds a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering and has graduate education in vehicle dynamics, human factors, engineering, and accident reconstruction.
Discussion by the Court
To begin with, Defendants specified three opinions that they argued fail “to adequately account for obvious alternative explanations for how and why this accident occurred.”
The three challenged opinions are that the accident could have been avoided if (1) the superload, pilot and Trooper vehicles commenced the move at 9:00 p.m. as opposed to 8:47 p.m., (2) the superload traveled the posted speed limit of 45 mph, and (3) the superload slowed to a complete stop and moved over to the right after being alerted of the oncoming vehicles.
As for the first challenged opinion, i.e., that the accident could have been avoided if the route had begun at 9:00 p.m. rather than 8:47 p.m., Gourley bases his opinion on the subject ALDOT permit and his “common sense” understanding of traffic density. As a result, the Court concluded that Defendants’ motion is due to be granted as to this opinion. Basically, this opinion is speculative, unhelpful to the jury, an improper subject of expert testimony, and improper testimony regarding a violation of the subject ALDOT permit.
The Court concluded that Defendants’ motion as to the second and third specified opinions is due to be denied because those opinions may be helpful to the jury and are not subject to exclusion, but rather are proper subjects of cross-examination.
Held
The Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ Daubert challenge and/or motion to strike certain opinions of Plaintiff’s expert Travis Gourley.
Key Takeaway
The failure to include variables in an expert’s testing will affect the analysis’ probativeness, not its admissibility.
Even if a jury could find some inconsistency between an expert’s report and his deposition that might undermine his testimony at trial, that credibility question is one for the jury to answer.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Goodin V. J.H. Walker, Inc. |
| Docket Number: | 1:24cv286 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Alabama Southern |
| Order Date: | March 24, 2026 |
Leave a Reply