Expert Witness Profiler

Tag: Door

  • Trucking Expert Not Allowed to Opine on the Trailer Door

    Trucking Expert Not Allowed to Opine on the Trailer Door

    This dispute arises from an incident that occurred on February 6, 2021, in which Plaintiff Lee James Barley was injured when he fell while loading his belongings into a trailer.

    Defendants ArcBest II, Inc. and Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc. filed motions to exclude the opinions of Mark Respass, Jeffrey Marksthaler, and Michael Freeman.

    Trucking Expert Witness

    Mark Respass has 40 years of training and experience in the commercial trucking industry, including fleet safety management, risk management, driver recruiting and training, accident investigation.

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

    Engineering Expert Witness

    Jeffrey R. Marksthaler is a licensed Professional Engineer with 35 years of experience in heavy manufacturing facilities and production management, manufacturing process and quality control, mechanical and chemical testing, accreditation, failure analysis and risk assessment for processes, materials, components, consumer products, food product, and consumer goods.

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

    Forensic Medicine Expert Witness

    Michael David Freeman is credentialed as a Fellow of the Royal College of Pathologists (UK), Fellow of the Faculty of Forensic and Legal Medicine (FFLM) of the Royal College of Physicians (UK) and member of the British Association in Forensic Medicine.

    He has also taught courses in forensic medicine, forensic epidemiology, and injury epidemiology at the Oregon Health and Science University School of Medicine and Maastricht University.

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

    Discussion by the Court

    I. Motion to Exclude Expert Opinions of Mark Respass

    To begin with, Defendants sought to exclude the opinions of Respass on the grounds that he lacked the requisite qualifications, expertise, or experience to render expert opinions regarding Old Dominion’s scheduled inspections and maintenance of the trailer door and strap or the applicable Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (“FMCRs”) regarding annual inspections and maintenance.

    Respass made several findings including that the strap at issue was “badly worn and weakened” when the trailer was delivered to Plaintiff, the Old Dominion driver who delivered the trailer failed to notice that the strap was badly worn and weakened, and Old Dominion fell below a reasonable standard of care for a motor carrier by not maintaining the roll-up door’s mechanical components and the pull strap.

    However, Respass conceded that he did not have “expertise in pull straps” or in “determining what causes them to fail” or any expertise “in what fibers or materials were involved in this particular strap.” He also stated that he based his finding that the strap was “badly worn and weakened” when the trailer was delivered to Plaintiff on “common sense, that this is an old strap.” When asked to “put aside common sense” and to provide what “expertise he has in determining why this particular strap failed,” Respass stated that he “would not have any scientific expertise as to why it failed.”

    Accordingly, the Court concluded that Plaintiff has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respass’ opinions are based on adequate facts or data or on a reliable methodology. Plaintiff also has not established that Respass is qualified as an expert by his “knowledge, skills, experience, training, or education” or that his technical or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact.

    II. Motion to Exclude Expert Opinions of Jeffrey Marksthaler

    A. Marksthaler’s Initial Expert Report

    Defendants sought to exclude the opinions of Marksthaler contained in his initial expert report on the grounds that he lacked the requisite education, training, experience, and expertise to qualify as an expert in the testing and analysis of the door strap or operation, maintenance, repair, or inspection of commercial trailer doors, and he failed to apply reliable scientific principles and methodology to his analysis and instead relied on speculation and intuition.

    Marksthaler testified that he is a metallurgical engineer and his only education on woven materials involved a “very small amount” of a one-semester general materials undergraduate course. Marksthaler admitted that he “had no experience in what might cause fraying polyester or similar fibers or materials, such as a strap.”

    When asked for the source of Marksthaler’s information and opinion that fibers fray more easily when they are dirty, he responded that it was a video on YouTube regarding climbing rope rather than a scientific article or similar.

    B. Marksthaler’s Rebuttal Report

    In his rebuttal report Marksthaler opined that “immediately before failure, only a small section of the strap width remained.” At deposition, however, Marksthaler conceded that “he would have to think of a way” to scientifically determine when various sections of the strap failed.

    Marksthaler agreed at deposition that the idea of shock loading “occurred to [him]” before his first expert report, but he did not make any mention of shock loading in his initial report. He also agreed that none of the defense experts mentioned or discussed shock loading.

    Marksthaler conceded that he had the information to opine about shock loading before he produced his first report and the record reflects that defendants’ experts did not mention or discuss shock loading. Accordingly, the Court concludes that Marksthaler’s opinion regarding shock loading in his rebuttal report is precluded by Rule 26.

    The Court concluded that Plaintiff has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that Marksthaler’s opinions are based on adequate facts or data or on a reliable methodology.

    C. Motion to Strike Marksthaler’s Declaration

    Defendants filed a motion to strike Marksthaler’s declaration, which was submitted in support of Plaintiff’s response to Defendants’ motion to exclude, on the grounds that most of the declaration contradicted his deposition testimony, contained hearsay, and was not supported by the evidence.

    The Court granted Defendants’ motion to strike to the extent that it would disregard the portions of the declaration that contradicted Marksthaler’s deposition testimony, were not supported by the evidence, and/or did not contain admissible evidence.

    III. Motion to Exclude Expert Opinions of Michael Freeman, Ph.D.

    A. Freeman’s Qualifications

    Freeman acknowledged at deposition that he is an epidemiologist “with a focus on traffic crash related injuries,” not an engineer or a biomechanical engineer and he does not have a degree in engineering, biomechanical engineering, biomechanics, kinematics, or kinetics.

    Plaintiff also cited several cases in which courts have admitted Freeman as an expert, but these cases involved traffic accident reconstructions, a topic in which Freeman is well-versed.

    B. Reliable Principles and Methods

    On September 9, 2024, Adanty completed a report in which he opined that Plaintiff’s injuries are not consistent with him falling directly on to his elbows and that if the strap broke as Plaintiff reported, “he would not have fallen in a movement pattern that would result in his body landing on the left side of the ramp.”

    In his rebuttal report Freeman, however, stated that “absent video footage of the fall, there is no way to determine the dynamics of the fall, beyond the basic description” provided by Plaintiff at deposition where he stated that he fell backwards.

    When asked what biomechanical principles supported Freeman’s view that Plaintiff fell backwards off the ramp, Freeman responded that “it’s Plaintiff’s recollection. I don’t have a video to say what he says isn’t true.”

    The Court concluded that Plaintiff has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that Freeman is qualified to offer a rebuttal opinion on the biomechanical aspects of the incident at issue or that Freeman applied reliable principles and methods under Rule 702 or Daubert.

    C. Freeman’s Declaration

    Defendants also filed a motion to strike Freeman’s Declaration on the basis that it is contradicted by this deposition testimony, reports, and curriculum vitae. The Court granted Defendants’ motion to strike to the extent that it will disregard the portions of Freeman’s declaration that are contradicted by his deposition testimony, are not supported by the evidence, and/or do not contain admissible evidence.

    Held

    The Court granted Defendants’ motions to exclude the opinions of Mark Respass, Jeffrey Marksthaler, and Michael Freeman.

    Key Takeaway

    An expert may submit a rebuttal report if the evidence is intended solely to contradict or rebut evidence on the same subject matter identified by another party. Using a rebuttal report as a backdoor to introduce analysis that could have been included in the opening report is squarely foreclosed by Rule 26.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Barley, II V. Arcbest II, Inc.
    Docket Number: 3:22cv1921
    Court Name: United States District Court, Oregon
    Order Date: March 11, 2026
  • Aviation Safety Expert’s Opinion on Organizational Culture Excluded

    Aviation Safety Expert’s Opinion on Organizational Culture Excluded

    This case stemmed from an incident that occurred at Oslo Gardermoen Airport on August 23, 2019. Plaintiff Susan Hardy had flown with United Airlines from New Orleans to New Jersey. From there, she boarded a connecting flight to Oslo, Norway, operated by Defendant Scandinavian Airlines System. According to her claims, she fell while disembarking in Oslo due to a five-to-six-inch gap between the aircraft door and the passenger boarding bridge (PBB), which caused her to suffer injuries.

    Plaintiff engaged expert Matthew G. Robinson, as an “aviation safety expert, accident investigator and reconstructionist.”

    Robinson was asked “to determine the causes of injury to” Plaintiff. He reached four conclusions: (1) The Defendant “violated requirements to ensure” the vertical gap between the aircraft’s floor and the PBB was equal to the lower lip of the aircraft doorsill, providing a level boarding surface; (2) The Defendant “violated International requirements to report” and investigate Plaintiff’s injury; (3) The Defendant’s “failure to warn passengers of the” gap between the aircraft floor and the PBB “led to” Plaintiff’s injury; and (4) The Defendant’s failure to conduct a safety investigation is clear evidence of “a pathological and/or bureaucratic organizational culture.

    Scandinavian Airlines System filed a motion in limine to limit or exclude the testimony of Robinson.

    Aviation Safety Expert Witness

    Matthew G. Robinson, ATP, CFI-I has been the President of the Southern California Safety Institute (“SCSI”) since 2013. Robinson teaches courses in Witness Interviews, Photo-documentation, ICAO requirements, and Evidence Collection and Preservation among others. His work at SCSI also includes instruction on Safety Management Systems and Human Factors.

    Since 2008, Robinson has also conducted technical investigations and provided analysis, reports and testimony in the litigation arena for Robson Forensic, Inc. and now for his own company, Flight Forensics.

    Robinson is a Certified Human Factors Analysis and Classification Professional. He also has a master’s degree in aviation systems safety from Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University.

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

    Discussion by the Court

    Defendant did not contest Robinson’s qualifications as an aviation safety expert; he clearly is an expert and will be allowed to testify in this area. Instead, Defendant filed a motion to exclude his first and third opinions because they are based on unreliable methodologies. Defendant also argued that Robinson’s fourth opinion should be excluded because (1) the opinion did not follow a reliable methodology, (2) there was an analytical gap between the opinion and its basis, and (3) the opinion was unduly prejudicial.

    Robinson May Not Offer his First Opinion that Defendant Violated a “Requirement” that a Level Boarding Surface be Provided

    Defendant moved to exclude Robinson’s opinion that Defendant “violated requirements to ensure the vertical gap between the aircraft cabin floor and [PBB] was equal to the lower lip of the aircraft doorsill.”

    Defendant argued that “too great an analytical gap exists between Robinson’s opinions and the underlying facts” because Robinson based his opinion on the Federal Aviation Administration’s (“FAA”) Advisory Circular No. 150/5220-21C (the “FAA Advisory Circular”). Defendant challenged Plaintiff’s reliance on this document, emphasizing that it held no legal authority in Oslo.

    In response, Plaintiff acknowledged that “the FAA Advisory Circular is not binding on [Defendant] under European law.” Nevertheless, Plaintiff maintained that the FAA Advisory Circular “is an internationally recognized best practice and technical benchmark.” In a supplement to his expert report, Robinson himself conceded that the FAA Advisory Circular is “advisory,” “informational,” and “not regulatory.”

    Given that the FAA Advisory Circular is not binding under European law and is expressly “advisory/informational” and “not regulatory,” the Court ruled that Robinson could not testify that Defendant violated a “requirement” prohibiting a vertical gap between the aircraft door and the PBB. However, the Court also held that Robinson’s opinion on the matter was not entirely unreliable. He was permitted to testify, based on his expertise, about the types and functioning of PBBs, the best practices concerning the height of a PBB relative to aircraft doors, whether Defendant’s actions aligned with those best practices, and the measured distance of the vertical gap on the flight in question.

    In short, the Court concluded that Robinson’s opinion regarding the gap should be challenged through cross-examination, the introduction of opposing evidence, and clear jury instructions on the burden of proof—not through a Daubert motion.

    Robinson May Offer his Third Opinion on the Cause of Plaintiff’s Injuries

    The Defendant moved to exclude Robinson’s opinion that Plaintiff’s fall resulted from (1) the height difference between the aircraft door and the PBB, and (2) Defendant’s failure to warn Plaintiff of this height difference.

    The Defendant sought to exclude Robinson’s causation opinions, arguing that he improperly relied on an unsworn interview with the Plaintiff rather than her later, contradictory sworn deposition testimony. During the March 10, 2025 interview, the Plaintiff told Robinson that the flight crew failed to warn passengers about the gap between the aircraft door and the passenger boarding bridge (PBB), and she also described how the accident occurred. Robinson’s expert report, dated March 13, 2025, reflected this account.

    However, during her deposition on April 17, 2025—about a month later—the Plaintiff testified that she could not recall whether the crew issued any warning or how she had fallen.

    The Defendant contended that Robinson’s decision to credit unsworn testimony over sworn testimony “improperly infringes on the role of the trier of fact.” Despite this, the Court ruled that Robinson’s opinion was not rendered unreliable merely because it partially relied on his interview with the Plaintiff.

    Whether Robinson relied upon adequate information goes to the weight to be assigned to his testimony, as it involved the bases and sources upon which he relied in reaching his conclusions in this case. The difference between Plaintiff’s recall during Robinson’s interview and during her deposition “may be attacked on cross-examination, but the Court cannot say that the [reliance on Plaintiff’s interview] reached the level of ‘altered facts and speculation’ designed to bolster Plaintiff’s position.”

    Robinson May Not Offer his Fourth Opinion on Defendant’s Organizational Culture

    The Defendant moved to exclude Robinson’s fourth opinion that “Defendant’s failure to conduct a safety Investigation and provide safety recommendations is clear evidence of a pathological and/or bureaucratic organizational culture.”

    Quoting the Handbook of Aviation Human Factors (the “Handbook”), Robinson included in his report the statement that pathological organizations handle anomalies or problems through suppression, which “does not make the problem go away.”

    Despite Robinson’s education, work experience, and certification as an HFACS Professional, the Court found his qualifications insufficient to support an expert opinion on the Defendant’s organizational safety culture. His formal training in this area amounted to, at most, twenty-four hours over three days.

    The Court noted that Robinson relied solely on three points to support his opinion: the Defendant’s failure to investigate the Plaintiff’s incident, its failure to address the gap between the aircraft door and the PBB, and the Handbook in support of his organizational safety culture opinion. As a result, the Court concluded that even if Robinson were qualified to testify on organizational safety culture, his opinion in this case lacked reliability.

    During his deposition, Robinson failed to identify specific evidence backing his conclusions. He did not refer to any materials reflecting the Defendant’s actual operations, corporate culture, or established patterns and practices. Ultimately, his opinion appeared to rest entirely on his interpretation of the Handbook and the absence of a post-incident investigation.

    To add to that, the Court held that the probative value of Robinson’s opinion that Defendant’s corporate culture caused the Plaintiff’s injuries is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice against Defendant, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, and wasting time.

    Held

    The Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendant Scandinavian Airlines System’s motion in limine to limit or exclude the testimony of Matthew G. Robinson.

    Key Takeaways:

    • The number of sources on which an expert may reasonably rely is virtually infinite and such sources include interviews and general knowledge or experience.
    • Cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof is the proper means of attacking Robinson’s opinion regarding the gap between the aircraft floor and the PBB, not a Daubert motion.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Hardy V. Scandinavian Airlines System
    Docket Number: 2:21cv1591
    Court Name: United States District Court, Louisiana Eastern
    Order Date: June 23, 2025