Louisiana Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

As discussed in the last post on the topic of traffic accident reconstruction, experts can play a pivotal role in the outcome of a case. Many accident victims can benefit from the opinion of reconstruction experts in establishing the at-fault party in a crash. Key to achieving this result is officially qualifying the reconstruction expert in the eyes of the court. Though a person may represent himself as qualified to analyze traffic accidents and offer an opinion on its cause, it may be quite another matter for the court to accept the opinion and permit the jury to consider the expert’s testimony.

The case Wilson v. Woods, 163 F.3d 935 (5th Cir. 1999) helps to explain the trial court’s role in evaluating the qualifications of a self-proclaimed accident reconstruction expert. The case arose out of an automobile accident in which the defendant, driving a tractor-trailer, collided with the defendant’s car at an intersection in Yazoo City, Miss. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was negligent because at the time of the crash he was operating his truck at a speed in excess of the posted limit of 55 MPH. In support of this theory, the plaintiff sought during her jury trial to qualify her witness, Mr. Rosenhan, as an expert in accident reconstruction. Rosenhan was to testify that, based upon his review of the police’s accident report, he calculated that the defendant’s truck was traveling 63 MPH at the time of the collision. The defendant objected, arguing that Rosenhan was not qualified to render an expert opinion on the crash. After substantial analysis, the district (trial) court refused to qualify Rosenhan as an expert witness and did not allow the jury to hear his testimony. When the jury returned a verdict for the defendant after the plaintiff could not otherwise prove her speeding theory and establish the defendant’s negligence, the plaintiff appealed on the issue of the trial court’s exclusion of Rosenhan’s testimony.

The appellate court recalled its prior decisions establishing that district courts are given "wide latitude in determining the admissibility of expert testimony, and the discretion of the trial judge ... will not be disturbed on appeal unless manifestly erroneous." Watkins v. Telsmith, Inc. 121 F.3d 984, 988 (5th Cir.1997). It also referenced the Supreme Court decision of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), in which the Court instructed district courts to function as gatekeepers and permit only reliable and relevant expert testimony to be presented to the jury. When the appellate court considered the matter of Rosenhan’s expertise as analyzed by the district court, it found he had earned both a bachelor of science degree and a master of science degree in mechanical engineering, but he didn’t complete his doctorate degree. Rosenhan taught courses in mechanical engineering and industrial engineering at various colleges and vocational schools.During his 25-year consulting career, Rosenhan’s work focused on fire reconstruction and investigation; however, he testified that he had only recently changed his specialty to car accident reconstruction.

The appellate court further considered that the defendant’s counsel questioned Rosenhan and established that:

- although Rosenhan taught college level courses, he never held professorial rank; - he never taught an accident reconstruction course or any other course that involved automobile accident reconstruction; - he had no degree or certification in accident reconstruction (but he was enrolled in a correspondence course from the Northwestern Traffic Institute); - he had not completed the requirements for certification by the Association of Accident Reconstructionists; and, - although he had testified in various cases, one court had refused to qualify him as an expert in vehicle accident reconstruction based on his lack of qualifications.

Finally, the appellate court noted that the district court judge personally questioned Rosenhan and ascertained that he:

- had never conducted any studies or experiments in the field of accident reconstruction; - did not take any measurements or collect any data from the accident scene in this case; - did not examine the tires or other mechanical parts involved in the accident; - based his calculations on publicly accessible data published by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration; and, - was unable to show that his training or experience as a mechanical engineer gave him expertise in the field of accident reconstruction that was distinguishable from training received by other mechanical engineers.

Based on all of these facts, the appellate court found that Rosenhan’s expertise in the area of accident reconstruction was “legitimately in doubt” and that the district court, therefore, “appropriately exercised its gatekeeping responsibility and did not abuse its discretion in refusing to qualify the witness” and permit him to testify for the jury. The appellate court affirmed the jury verdict for the defendant.

The Wilson case illustrates the importance of ensuring that an accident reconstruction expert’s qualifications will be accepted by the court so that the expert’s testimony will be heard by the jury. This is especially true in situations like this one where the expert’s opinion is absolutely critical to the victim’s recovery. If you have been injured in a car accident, you need a lawyer who not only knows the law, but also knows who you can rely on for expert testimony to win your case and get the recovery you deserve.