Expert Witness Profiler

Category: Transportation Expert Witness

  • Transportation Expert Allowed to Opine on Aluminum Loading

    Transportation Expert Allowed to Opine on Aluminum Loading

    This is a personal injury case arising from the death of Asa Eugene Parnell (“Parnell”). On July 8, 2024, Parnell and his co-worker picked up a pre-loaded flatbed trailer from Defendant Tower Extrusions, LLC’s (“Defendant”) facility in Wylie, Texas. Plaintiffs, relatives of Parnell, alleged that the trailer was illegally overloaded with thousands of pounds of aluminum, alleging negligence and negligence per se against Defendant.

    Defendant filed a motion to exclude the report of Brooks Rugemer, a commercial trucking specialist retained by the Plaintiffs. Basically, Defendant argued that some of Rugemer’s opinions lacked a factual foundation, that Rugemer is unqualified, and that Rugemer’s opinions are unreliable or irrelevant.

    Transportation Expert Witness

    Brooks Rugemer has twelve years of experience as a professional tractor trailer driver, thirty years of experience with transportation-related accident investigations, and he is a Certified Director of Safety recognized by the North American Transportation Management Institute.

    Get the full story on challenges to Brooks Rugemer’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study.

    Discussion by the Court

    A. Rugemer’s Opinions Regarding the Trailer Axle and Overweight Load

    Defendant argued that no factual foundation supported Rugemer’s statement that “it was discovered” that Defendant overloaded the trailer. Defendant also argued that Rugemer applied the wrong weight formula because different axle configurations have different weight regulations.

    As to the first concern, the Court found that the challenge goes to the weight of Rugemer’s testimony, rather than admissibility. The second concern also goes to weight, particularly in light of the Court’s decision to grant summary judgment on the negligence per se theory of breach.

    B. Rugemer’s Qualifications

    Defendant also argued that Rugemer’s report and resume “did not demonstrate he is qualified to offer expert testimony on nuanced aluminum extrusion loading standards.” Defendant further argued that Rugemer’s reliance on “blogs” demonstrated his “lack of expertise in this area.”

    Even though his experience did not specifically relate to aluminum loading, after reviewing Rugemer’s qualifications, the Court found that he is qualified to testify as an expert in this case. Whether his lack of experience with aluminum casts doubt on his testimony is a matter for cross-examination.

    C. Rugemer’s Methodology

    The main methodology challenge is that Rugemer did not sufficiently discuss Parnell’s potential role in the accident, and that this deficiency
    demonstrated that Rugemer did not apply a reliable methodology.

    The Court has already ruled that, notwithstanding Parnell’s duty to secure the cargo, Defendant had a duty to exercise reasonable care in loading the cargo—at least to prevent hidden and latent defects. The Court is not convinced that Rugemer and Defendant’s disagreements about which party had a duty or what regulations should have been followed warrant excluding Rugemer’s
    testimony.

    Defendant also argued that “unreliable methodology aside, Rugemer’s report is devoid of any independent or verifiable analysis supporting his conclusion; he merely assumes that Defendant loaded heavier bundles on top lighter bundles.” The Court found that these concerns go to the weight of Rugemer’s opinions.

    D. Relevance of Failure to Warn Opinion

    Defendant took issue with Rugemer’s statement that Parnell was not warned of the potential hazard of removing the belly straps that were securing the load. In Defendant’s view, the opinion is not relevant because “this is not a workplace injury.” The Court found that it is more likely than not that Rugemer’s testimony will be relevant and helpful for the jury.

    Held

    In short, the Court is persuaded that Brooks Rugemer is qualified as an expert under Rule 702, and that Rule 702’s prongs are established by a preponderance of the evidence.

    Key Takeaway

    An independent investigation is not required for an expert to pass muster under Rule 702 (particularly here, when the cargo at issue was delivered by the time Plaintiffs retained him), and whether Rugemer should have looked at different pictures or the characteristics of more loads is a matter for cross-examination.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Smith V. Extrusions
    Docket Number: 4:24cv811
    Court Name: United States District Court, Texas Eastern
    Order Date: April 30, 2026
  • Transportation Expert Was Not Allowed to Opine on Hiring Practices

    Transportation Expert Was Not Allowed to Opine on Hiring Practices

    Plaintiff Casey A. Drake sued the Defendants Crete Carrier Corporation and Reuben Robert Shaffer for personal injuries arising from a vehicle collision. Drake was riding in a car driven by his niece, Erica Diehl. Shaffer was driving a tractor-trailer. As the two drivers passed a wrecked vehicle, they collided.

    Drake retained Robert Kelly and Jack Leifer as experts to testify that Shaffer caused the collision. The Defendants filed motions to exclude their testimony.

    Transportation Expert Witness

    Robert P. Kelly was a police officer for ten years. During that time, he investigated more than 300 collisions involving commercial vehicles. He has certifications specific to traffic enforcement and is certified as a driving instructor for commercial vehicles.

    Discover more cases with Robert Kelly as an expert witness by ordering his comprehensive Expert Witness Profile report.

    Accident Reconstruction Expert Witness

    Jack Leifer is a mechanical engineer who has taught university courses relating to dynamics, kinematics, and statics and has published multiple works related to the relationships between impacts and force.

    He is an affiliate of the Society of Accident Reconstructionists and a member of the Texas Association of Accident Reconstruction Specialists. Leifer is responsible for numerous publications and presentations about topics related to accident reconstruction, and he has participated in continuing education courses dedicated to accident reconstruction.

    Want to know more about the challenges Jack Leifer has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report.

    Discussion by the Court

    Robert Kelly

    A. Qualification

    The Defendants argued that Kelly is not qualified to opine on the cause of the collision because he is not an accident reconstructionist.

    A police officer may testify about the cause of a traffic accident if he has sufficient skill and knowledge. As a result, the Court held that Kelly has sufficient experience working with commercial vehicles and investigating collisions involving them to opine on the cause of the collision at issue here.

    B. Reliability

    The Defendants also argued that Kelly’s testimony would be unreliable because he based his opinion solely on two photographs and did not visit the accident scene, conduct any interviews, or take any measurements.

    Kelly based that opinion on his review of footage recorded by a responding police officer’s body camera, two frames of which are reproduced in his report. Those frames appear to show the hood and front tires of the disabled vehicle extending into the right lane over the dashed white line that divides the road. Kelly also reviewed the responding officer’s crash report, which repeated Diehl’s claim that Shaffer moved from the right lane into the right-hand shoulder and struck her car.

    Whether a vehicle has space to maneuver is the kind of determination an expert can make based on his review of photographs and videos alone. By reviewing the images available here, Kelly could see the amount of unobstructed space in the right lane of traffic and, applying his knowledge, determine whether or not a tractor-trailer would be able to safely traverse the lane without moving into the shoulder.

    C. Irrelevance of Crete’s conduct

    Kelly also stated his opinions about Crete’s hiring of Shaffer, Shaffer’s qualifications, whether Crete kept adequate records, and whether Shaffer was adequately trained. The Defendants challenged those opinions as unreliable and as irrelevant to the central issue of causation. Drake did not assert a direct negligence claim against Crete. He sought to hold Crete vicariously liable for Shaffer’s alleged negligence at the time of the collision.

    Whether Shaffer was qualified, whether Crete kept adequate records, and whether Shaffer was adequately trained do not bear on whether Shaffer was negligent at that time. Evidence that has no tendency to make a material fact more or less probable is not admissible. As such, the Court excluded Kelly’s opinions about hiring, qualifications, record keeping, and training.

    Jack Leifer

    A. Qualification

    The Defendants argued that Leifer, like Kelly, is not qualified to opine on the cause of the collision because he is not an accident reconstructionist.

    His report discusses, based on the damage to Diehl’s car and the conditions of the roadway, the forces that likely applied to the vehicles and the relative speeds that would probably have generated those forces.

    Leifer’s observations are based in physics, and his CV reflects substantial knowledge and experience in the relevant scientific fields. The Court held that he is well-qualified to opine and reasonably apply his observations to the facts of this case.

    B. Reliability

    The Defendants made three arguments that Leifer’s methods and data are unreliable. First, they asserted that Leifer relied on a scientific study that is old and distinguishable from the facts of this case. Second, they argued that, during his deposition, Leifer could not “state with certainty” how the collision occurred. Finally, they noted that Leifer could also not initially state at his deposition what source supported his opinion that lanes of traffic are generally 11–12 feet wide.

    Analysis

    As to the first argument, both the study Leifer relies on and his own opinion are grounded in physics. The laws of physics operated the same way in 2002, when the challenged study was published, as they did when the collision at issue here occurred.

    As to the second argument, Leifer testified that the collision might have occurred in one of three ways: Shaffer’s tractor-trailer was moving to the right, Diehl’s car was straddling the fog line, or Diehl was moving to the left. Although Leifer conceded that any of those three scenarios was possible, he testified that it is most likely that Shaffer was moving to the right at the time of the collision. That opinion was based on his opinions that Shaffer’s vehicle was likely moving faster than Diehl’s and that it would have been unsafe for Shaffer to drive straight through the right lane without moving to the shoulder.

    As to the Defendants’ final argument, Leifer’s inability to recite, on the spot during his deposition, a source stating that traffic lanes are generally 11–12 feet wide did not impugn his report’s validity. Leifer testified that he used the standard width of a traffic lane to calculate an approximate location of the collision. Although he also testified that traffic lanes are generally 11–12 feet wide, that figure does not appear in his report.

    It would be unreasonable to deem his testimony unreliable just because he had not memorized the citation for a figure, particularly one that did not appear in his report.

    Held

    The Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to exclude Robert Kelly’s testimony and denied the motion to exclude Jack Leifer’s testimony.

    Key Takeaway

    As with an expert’s qualifications, whether an expert’s methodology is reliable depends on the particular circumstances of each case. Reviewing photographs, especially where, as here, that review is bolstered by other materials, is not necessarily an unreliable method. In appropriate circumstances, photographs can provide sufficient information for an expert to apply his knowledge and experience and form an opinion.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Drake V. Crete Carrier Corporation
    Docket Number: 4:23cv1021
    Court Name: United States District Court, Texas Eastern
    Order Date: January 05, 2026
  • Transportation Expert’s Testimony About Safety Considerations Admitted

    Transportation Expert’s Testimony About Safety Considerations Admitted

    This case arises out of injuries sustained by Brandon Jensen on his bicycle when he collided with a semi-truck who made a left turn through his lane of travel. The semi-truck was driven by Defendant Michael Beale. Beale was working for Crete Carrier at the time of the accident.

    The Plaintiffs designated Larry D. Baareman as an expert in traffic reconstruction and transportation. The Defendants filed a motion in limine to exclude the testimony of Baareman. 

    Transportation Expert Witness

    Larry Dale Baareman has several decades of experience driving trucks and training other truck drivers. He has taught State and Federal motor carrier regulations for over 32 years and is also a State of Michigan licensed CDL Instructor. He has 29 years of experience as a State of Michigan certified CDL Examiner.

    Want to know more about the challenges Larry Baareman has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report.

    Discussion by the Court

    The Defendants maintained that Baareman’s testimony should be excluded because it duplicates other testimony, would be a waste of judicial economy, and consisted of conclusory opinions that are not properly within the scope of expert testimony that would aid the trier of fact.

    Given Baareman’s qualifications and experience, the Court found that Baareman could properly offer his opinions about safety considerations while driving a truck, especially concerning left turns and the use of the truck horn during emergency situations.

    But the Court directed the witness to avoid using the term “right-of-way.” The Plaintiffs’ accident reconstruction expert, Dr. Jay Przybyla, used this term while testifying on November 12, 2025, and the Court instructed the jury to disregard that testimony.

    Whether Defendant Michael Beale should have yielded the right-of-way to Jensen is really a question about whether Jensen was “so close to the turning vehicle as to constitute an immediate hazard.” But this is a question of fact for the jury.

    In addition, the application of right-of-way principles to the facts of this case is not so technical or difficult to synthesize that an expert opinion would aid the trier of fact. Accordingly, the Court found that expert witnesses should avoid opining about who had the right-of-way.

    Held

    The Court denid the Defendants’ motion in limine to exclude testimony from Larry Baareman.

    Key Takeaway:

    While the Court has allowed the parties to present accident reconstruction experts to offer their opinions about timing and distance, any opinions about who had the right-of-way would come perilously close to an opinion on the ultimate issue presented to the jury.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Jensen V. Crete Carrier Corporation
    Docket Number: 1:23cv105
    Court Name: United States District Court for the District of Utah, Northern Division
    Order Date: November 17, 2025

    Please refer to the blog previously published about this case:

    Transportation Engineering Expert’s Testimony on Accident Reconstruction Admitted