Expert Witness Profiler

Tag: Conditions

  • Automotive Expert’s Testimony on Exemplar Testing Excluded

    Automotive Expert’s Testimony on Exemplar Testing Excluded

    This is a products liability action concerning a 1998 Ford Expedition owned by Plaintiff, Lorelle Thompson. On December 27, 2016, Plaintiff was driving the vehicle in her neighborhood and stopped near her mailbox to check her mail. Upon exiting the vehicle, Plaintiff fell to the ground. While Plaintiff was on the ground, the vehicle rolled backward over her left leg.

    Ford Motor Company filed a motion to exclude the testimony of Plaintiff’s expert, Richard A. Hille.

    Automotive Expert Witness

    Richard Allen Hille has been involved in automotive work for virtually all of his adult life beginning with his start in automotive racing in 1968 and continuing through his current racing activities.

    He has reconstructed and analyzed over 3000 motor vehicle accidents, including virtually every kind of motor vehicle accident that can occur, impacts from any direction, rollovers, vaults, falls, submersions and more.

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

    Discussion by the Court

    Hille’s expert report places significant reliance on the exemplar testing conducted by him. Defendant challenged the reliability of Hille’s testing, methods, and related testimony.

    Hille conducted testing on an exemplar Ford Expedition on February 17, 2023. This testing was not well documented or controlled. Hille took just eight photographs and no videos during his testing. Thus, the Court was not able to review any footage of the testing. Moreover, Hille apparently did not create any contemporaneous written record of his testing conditions or results.

    Analysis

    Additionally, Hille’s testimony revealed that the testing was inexact in several ways.

    First, he testified that he moved the exemplar vehicle’s shifter from drive to park “approximately 100” times, that “about half the time” the shift lever failed to reach the park detent and instead ended up in false park, and that on “two occasions” the shift lever fell from false park into powered reverse.

    Second, Hille broadly testified “it took seconds” for the shift lever to fall from false park to reverse on those two occasions, but he did not offer an exact time.

    Third, Hille testified that he did not measure the force with which he moved the shifter from drive to park, and that he deliberately perched the shifter into false park “a couple of times.”

    Fourth, although the testing conditions varied throughout the day, there is no indication that these variations were documented or accounted for. Specifically, the exemplar vehicle’s shift cable was initially secured to the shift lever with “gorilla tape” due to a malfunctioning bushing and was later reattached using a newly purchased bushing. Hille testified that “75, 80 percent” of the testing was done with the new bushing, and the rest was done with the tape, but he did not specify how many tests were conducted with tape as opposed to the new bushing.

    Moreover, Hille did not identify which configuration—the tape or the new bushing—was in use when the shifter moved from false park to powered reverse.

    The Court noted that Hille’s lack of documentation essentially requires the Court to “just believe him” in order to admit his opinions. 

    Held

    The Court granted Ford Motor Company’s motion to exclude the testimony of Richard Hille pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702. 

    Key Takeaway

    While an expert need not adhere to any one documentation protocol, the near-total absence of records here, makes meaningful review of Hille’s methodology impossible.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Thompson V. Ford Motor Company
    Docket Number: 1:22cv541
    Court Name: United States District Court, Colorado
    Order Date: March 24, 2026
  • Civil Engineering Expert Witness’ Testimony Premised on a Coefficient of Friction Measurement Test Excluded

    Civil Engineering Expert Witness’ Testimony Premised on a Coefficient of Friction Measurement Test Excluded

    Plaintiff Migdalia Rodríguez filed suit against Defendants WV Vacation Business LLC d/b/a Hotel Vista Azul and Cooperativa de Seguros Múltiples under Puerto Rico’s general tort statute. 

    She claims that while at the WV she slipped and fell on artificial grass. The Plaintiff filed a motion to exclude Engineer Berlin Ng Cortiñas’ testimony because, she claims, it is unreliable, irrelevant and may mislead the trier of fact. 

    Civil Engineering Expert Witness

    Berlin Ng Cortiñas is a civil and structural engineer, with 40 years of experience. During this time, his professional practice has been developed in following field of the engineering: structural analysis and design, construction, inspection and expert witness.

    Get the full story on challenges to Berlin Ng Cortiñas’ expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study. 

    Discussion by the Court

    The Court finds that Eng. Ng Cortiñas’ educational background and work experience qualify him as an expert in the field of structural and civil engineering. So, the first factor is satisfied. The Court also understands that his testimony would be based upon sufficient facts, reliable principles, and methods. He therefore also satisfies the second factor.

    However, the Court does not find that Eng. Ng Cortiñas’ testimony will assist the trier of fact because his testimony is premised on a coefficient of friction measurement tests performed under conditions that do not represent the conditions at the time of the alleged incident.

    Plaintiff challenged Eng. Ng Cortiñas’ expert testimony because the basis for his testimony would be his expert report, which relied on a coefficient of friction test performed on dry artificial grass which did not reflect the conditions of the artificial grass at the time of the alleged incident. After all, when Plaintiff fell, the artificial grass was wet, not dry.

    A test performed on dry artificial grass is not helpful to the trier of fact

    The parties do not contest that the artificial grass was wet at the time of the incident. Therefore, the Court does not see how a test performed on dry artificial grass will help the trier of fact since the test does not recreate the conditions at the time of the alleged incident. Saying that the coefficient of friction complied with the relevant standards (whichever those may be) when the artificial grass was dry is meaningless since the artificial grass was wet at the time of the incident at issue.

    Had Eng. Ng Cortiñas also performed a coefficient of friction test on wet artificial grass so that the jury could have had the opportunity to consider that test vis-à-vis the one performed on dry grass, his testimony could have been helpful to the jury. But alas, that was not done. Accordingly, the Court found that Eng. Ng Cortiñas’ testimony should be excluded under Rule 702 because it will not assist the jury and under Rule 403 because its probative value could be outweighed by a danger of misleading and confusing the jury with a test that does not replicate the conditions of the artificial grass at the time of the incident and therefore cannot show whether there was compliance with relevant standards.

    Held

    The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to exclude Defendants’ expert witness, Eng. Berlin Ng Cortiñas.

    Key Takeaway:

    Plaintiff challenged Eng. Ng Cortiñas’ expert testimony because the basis for his testimony would be his expert report, which relies on a coefficient of friction test performed on dry artificial grass which did not reflect the conditions of the artificial grass at the time of the alleged incident. After all, when Plaintiff fell, the artificial grass was wet, not dry. Had Eng. Ng Cortiñas also performed a coefficient of friction test on wet artificial grass so that the jury could have had the opportunity to consider that test vis-à-vis the one performed on dry grass, his testimony could have been helpful to the jury. But alas, that was not done. 

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Rodriguez V. Wv Vacation Business Llc D/B/A Hotel Vista Azul Et Al
    Docket Number: 3:22cv1430
    Court: United States District Court, Puerto Rico
    Order Date: September 30, 2024