Tag: Transportation

  • 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

  • Transportation Safety Expert Witness’ Opinions Held to Consist of Abstract Propositions

    Transportation Safety Expert Witness’ Opinions Held to Consist of Abstract Propositions

    This case stems from a very minor rear-end motor vehicle accident on March
    26, 2021, which resulted in slight bumper damage to Plaintiffs’ truck. Defendant Ryan Transport employed Defendant Cummings and was under dispatch for Defendant Lenk Express at the time of the subject accident.

    To begin with, Plaintiffs retained and identified Linda Day to testify, in essence, that Defendant Cummings did not follow trucking industry standards in the operation of his vehicle and that Defendants Lenk Express and Ryan Transport did not follow trucking industry standards in their training of Defendant Cummings.

    Defendants filed a motion to exclude the opinions of Plaintiffs’ expert Linda Day under Federal Rule of Evidence 702.

    Transportation Safety Expert Witness

    Linda Day has been involved in various aspects of the transportation and warehousing industry since 1984. She has a master’s degree in Organizational Management with a specialization in Leadership. She has 30 years of experience working in various positions within the transportation industry.

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

    Discussion by the Court

    First, the Court held that a jury does not need to be told by an expert witness that a driver should look for traffic or not follow too closely and jurors do not need an expert to tell them that by failing to stop and rear-ending the Plaintiffs that Defendant Cummins was not observing the standard of care required by the driver of a motor vehicle on Georgia’s public road.

    Second, the Court added that her opinions consist of abstract propositions applicable to any accident but just not applicable to the particular facts of this case other than the fact that the accident happened, which is undisputed. Her opinions rely solely on the information contained in the police report for the subject accident. She has no opinions on the particular facts involved in the subject accident or why Defendant Cummings failed to stop.

    Held

    The Court granted Defendants’ motion to exclude the opinions of Plaintiffs’ expert Linda Day under Federal Rule of Evidence 702.

    Key Takeaway:

    The Court found that Linda Day’s opinions consisted of abstract propositions and were based on facts contained in the police report for the subject accident.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Perry Et Al V. Cummings Et Al
    Docket Number: 1:22cv3860
    Court: United States District Court, Georgia Northern
    Order Date: May 6, 2024