2006484.000 – 2265

November 2, 2020

Via email: eddyn@nicklauslaw.com

Edward A. Nicklaus Esq.

Nicklaus & Associates, P.A.

4651 Ponce de Leon Boulevard

Suite 200

Coral Gables, Florida 33146

Subject: Bove v. XPO Express, et al. 

Exponent Project No. 2006484.000

Dear Mr. Nicklaus:

I am writing to summarize the work undertaken by Exponent, Inc. in connection with 

human factors issues in the above-referenced case and the conclusions reached on the 

basis of work to date.

I received a Bachelor of Science Degree in engineering psychology from and performed 

Honors research in engineering psychology and human factors at Tufts University. I hold 

a Masters and a Ph.D. in psychology from the Human Factors and Applied Cognition 

Program from George Mason University. I am a Principal Scientist at Exponent and a 

member of the Human Factors Practice, where I regularly address how the capabilities 

and limitations of people interact with the products, equipment, and systems in their 

environment, and how this interaction affects safety. 

My work routinely relates to the analysis and evaluation of human behavior and 

performance, including issues as to visibility, perception-reaction, the science of risk 

communication and warnings, attention and control, nighttime and low light perception 

and vision, and accident avoidance. I have investigated safety issues related to the 

interaction between human perception, behavior, and environmental conditions. I am 

actively engaged in research relating to human perception, cognition, and behavior as 

well as driver behavior. I have published papers and presented at conferences related to 

human factors issues, including vehicle operator behavior, perceptual information 

processing, and the effects of interruptions and distractions on performance. I am a 

Case 9:20-cv-80945-DMM Document 80-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2021 Page 1 of 30
Edward A. Nicklaus Esq.

November 2, 2020

Page 2

2006484.000 – 2265

member of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society and SAE International (formerly 

the Society of Automotive Engineering).

A copy of my resume is attached (Appendix A). A list of the materials I have reviewed to 

date is also included (Appendix B). In many cases, direct citations are provided in 

footnotes in the text; however, these footnotes are not necessarily my sole basis for the 

associated statements. After reviewing the various available materials, I have the 

following opinions held to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty:

Incident Description

On November 13, 2018, Ms. Kimberly Sanders (DOB:11/20/1973) was driving a white 

2019 Volvo truck (VIN: 4V4NC9EH9KN196191) with a 53’ 2016 WABA trailer (VIN: 

1JJV532D7GL949604) attached, in the outside [right] lane northbound on the Florida 

Turnpike (State Road 91) in West Palm Beach, Florida.1 Also in the right lane, Mr. Scott 

Thomas Mascio (DOB: 09/17/1980) was driving a white 1999 Ford F250 pickup truck 

(VIN: 1FTNF20L0XEC63001), with just one working taillight on the passenger side.

2

Mr. Mascio’s truck bed was loaded with wooden planks or lumber.

3 Ahead of Mr. 

Mascio, in the same lane, Mr. Stephen Marshall Bove (DOB: 01/08/1990) was driving a 

blue 2018 Kia Soul (VIN: KNDJP3A58J7597130).4 Ahead of Mr. Bove, in the right lane,

Mr. John Joseph Mascetta (DOB: 07/13/1968) was driving a silver 2011 Ford F150 

pickup truck (VIN: 1FTMF1CM9BKD70133).5 Behind Ms. Sanders, in the same lane, 

Ms. Ashley Atkinson Gil (DOB: 10/27/1986) was driving a black 2015 Toyota RAV4 

(VIN: 5TDKKRFH5FS073309).6 At approximately 2:33 p.m. near mile marker 104, 

traffic in the right lane appeared to come to a sudden stop resulting in Ms. Sanders’

vehicle colliding with the rear of Mr. Mascio’s vehicle.7 As a result, Mr. Mascio’s 

vehicle moved forward and collided with Mr. Bove’s vehicle.8 Subsequently, Mr. Bove’s 

vehicle pushed forward and collided with Mr. Mascetta’s vehicle.9 In response to Ms. 

Sanders’ vehicle, Ms. Gil, who was positioned behind Ms. Sanders just prior to the 

1 Florida Traffic Crash Report (FTCR) pp. 1, 3, 5; Complaint p. 2

2 FTCR pp. 2, 4, 5; Complaint p. 3; Ms. Sanders Dashcam Video (Dashcam Video) 15:27:45, 15:27:41-

15:27:46

3 Dashcam Video 15:27:45, 15:27:41-15:27:46

4 FTCR pp. 1, 4, 5; Complaint pp. 1, 3

5 FTCR pp. 1, 4, 5; Complaint p. 3 

6 FTCR pp. 3, 4, 5

7 FTCR pp. 1, 5; Complaint p. 3

8 FTCR p. 5; Complaint p. 3

9 Ibid.

Case 9:20-cv-80945-DMM Document 80-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2021 Page 2 of 30
Edward A. Nicklaus Esq.

November 2, 2020

Page 3

2006484.000 – 2265

incident, swerved onto the right shoulder and into the grassy area on the side of the 

roadway, resulting in a collision with the cable guardrail.10

Area of Incident and Conditions

The weather on November 3, 2018 at approximately 2:33 p.m. in West Palm Beach, 

Florida was 79 degrees and mostly cloudy with light rain and thunder.11 It was daylight at 

the time of the incident.12 The surface of the roadway in the area of the incident was wet

from rainfall.

13 The speed limit in the area of the incident was 70 mph.14 The roadway in 

the area of the incident is a four lane divided highway that is straight, flat, and marked 

with a broken white line separating the two northbound lanes (See Figure 1).

15 A solid 

yellow line separates the travel lane and shoulder on the westbound side and a solid white 

lines separates the travel lane and shoulder on the eastbound side.16 The edge of the 

roadway on the eastbound side is lined with a guardrail, followed by a grassy area and an 

additional cable guardrail.17

10 FTCR p. 5; Complaint p. 3

11 www.wunderground.com; Dashcam Video

12 FTCR p. 1

13 FTCR p. 1; Dashcam Video 15:27:44

14 FTCR pp. 1, 2, 3

15 FTCR pp. 1, 2, 3; Google Earth; Dashcam Video 15:27:44

16 Google Earth; Dashcam Video 15:27:44

17 Ibid.

Case 9:20-cv-80945-DMM Document 80-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2021 Page 3 of 30
Edward A. Nicklaus Esq.

November 2, 2020

Page 4

2006484.000 – 2265

Figure 1. Google Earth Street View (top) and Screen Capture from Dashcam Video 

(bottom) of Incident Roadway

Case 9:20-cv-80945-DMM Document 80-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2021 Page 4 of 30
Edward A. Nicklaus Esq.

November 2, 2020

Page 5

2006484.000 – 2265

Police Investigation

The Florida Traffic Crash Report (FTCR) concluded that none of the drivers involved in 

the incident were distracted, including Ms. Sanders.18 Additionally, the FTCR indicated 

that Ms. Sanders’ vision was obstructed due to inclement weather.19 The diagram

included in the FTCR (Figure 2) represents the point of impact for each vehicle involved 

in the incident as well as each vehicle’s final resting location following the sequence of 

collisions.20 Ms. Sanders’ vehicle is represented by V01, Mr. Mascio’s vehicle is 

represented by V02, Mr. Bove’s vehicle is represented by V03, Mr. Mascetta’s vehicle is 

represented by V04, and Ms. Gil’s vehicle is represented by V05.21

Figure 2. Police Incident Diagram22

18 FTCR p. 4

19 Ibid.

20 FTCR p. 6

21 FTCR pp. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6

22 FTCR p. 6

Case 9:20-cv-80945-DMM Document 80-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2021 Page 5 of 30
Edward A. Nicklaus Esq.

November 2, 2020

Page 6

2006484.000 – 2265

Witness Accounts

Ms. Kimberly Sanders

Ms. Sanders had been driving for nine years prior to the incident and completed her 

training in Florida.23 On the day of the incident, Ms. Sanders believes she started driving 

around 10:00 a.m.24 Prior to beginning her shift, Ms. Sanders stated that she was 

probably asleep.

25 According to Ms. Sanders, their load was picked up from Lithia 

Springs, Georgia and dropped off at Amazon in Miami, Florida.

26 Ms. Sanders confirmed 

that her headlights were on while she was driving and that she was looking forward in the 

15 to 20 seconds prior to colliding with the vehicle in front of her.27 Although Ms. 

Sanders does not remember exactly how fast she was driving at the time of the incident, 

she stated that she would have been driving below the 70 mph speed limit because the 

roads were wet from rain.28 According to Ms. Sanders, the spray from the wet roadway 

had an impact on her ability to see the truck with wooden planks in front of her, in 

addition to the sunshine making it difficult to see with spray.29 Ms. Sanders added that,

“lighter color vehicle[s] are harder to see in the rain especially if their lights aren’t on.”30

She remembers checking her mirrors and that there was a little truck beside her, which is 

why she did not go into the left lane when she saw the truck in front of her.31 In the five 

seconds prior to the collision, Ms. Sanders stated that she checked the shoulder and saw a 

truck sitting there, which is why she only had one option; that being to try and stop before 

hitting the vehicle in front of her.32 In terms of how close she was to the vehicle directly 

in front of her in the few miles leading up to the incident, she stated she was never too 

close and that there was probably four to six truck lengths between herself and that car.33

When characterizing the number of seconds she was behind that vehicle, Ms. Sanders 

stated that she was maybe six to seven seconds behind and that she tries to stay as far 

away from a car as possible, especially when it rains.34 Ms. Sanders thinks she could 

23 Answer to Questionnaire document p. 2

24 Answer to Questionnaire document p. 1

25 Answer to Questionnaire document p. 2

26 Ibid.

27 Answer to Questionnaire document p. 3

28 Answer to Questionnaire document p. 2

29 Answer to Questionnaire document p. 4

30 Ibid.

31 Answer to Questionnaire document p. 3

32 Answer to Questionnaire document pp. 3-4

33 Answer to Questionnaire document p. 5

34 Ibid.

Case 9:20-cv-80945-DMM Document 80-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2021 Page 6 of 30
Edward A. Nicklaus Esq.

November 2, 2020

Page 7

2006484.000 – 2265

have stopped before the collision had the roadway not been wet and her truck not been 

empty.35

Mr. Stephen Bove

Mr. Bove testified that he was traveling northbound in the right lane on the Florida 

Turnpike on his way to work at the time of the incident.36 Mr. Bove indicated that he was 

driving his new 2018 Kia Soul and that his vehicle’s headlights and taillights were in 

working order at the time of the incident.37 Mr. Bove stated that the sun was out, but it 

was lightly raining and he had his windshield wipers on.38 Mr. Bove testified that prior to 

the incident, he was following the vehicle in front of him when he saw that vehicle’s 

lights turn on.39 He also indicated that the vehicle in front of him gradually slowed down

for about a minute prior to coming to a stop.

40 Mr. Bove indicated that this stop and go 

flow of traffic was normal for the Florida Turnpike in the afternoon.41 According to his 

testimony, while Mr. Bove was slowing down, he checked his mirrors and saw the 

vehicles behind him slowing down.42 After slowing his vehicle, Mr. Bove indicated that 

the vehicle in front of him came to a complete stop.43 In response, Mr. Bove testified that 

he brought his vehicle to a brief stop and does not remember if the vehicle behind him 

stopped.44 After stopping his vehicle, Mr. Bove stated that he was then hit after a few 

moments – or approximately four to five seconds later.

45 He indicated that his vehicle 

was hit from behind, which forced his vehicle into the vehicle in front of him.46 Mr. Bove 

testified that he did not have a chance to avoid the incident.47

Dashcam Video of Subject Incident

Ms. Sanders’ 2019 Volvo truck was equipped with dashcam video surveillance that was 

recording on the day of the incident. Rainy and wet conditions are apparent throughout

the dashcam’s three minutes of recording. Traffic flow appears constant in the first 50 

seconds of the video with Ms. Sanders traveling at a consistent speed while two vehicles 

35 Answer to Questionnaire document pp. 5, 6

36 Deposition of Stephen Bove (Bove) pp. 64, 72, 185, 187, 188

37 Bove pp. 67, 74, 75, 187

38 Bove pp. 65, 70, 75, 187-188

39 Bove p. 70

40 Bove p. 72

41 Ibid.

42 Bove pp. 70, 71, 188

43 Bove pp. 185, 188

44 Bove pp. 71, 72, 188 

45 Bove pp. 71, 73, 77, 188, 189, 189-190

46 Bove pp. 73, 77, 189, 190

47 Bove pp. 76-77

Case 9:20-cv-80945-DMM Document 80-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2021 Page 7 of 30
Edward A. Nicklaus Esq.

November 2, 2020

Page 8

2006484.000 – 2265

pass her in the left lane prior to the collision. At the approximate timestamp of 15:27:40, 

Ms. Sanders exclaims, “Shit” several times in response to the slowing traffic ahead.

48 At 

approximately 15:27:41, the pickup truck in front of her can be seen in the video with 

only its rear passenger-side taillight illuminated (See Figure 3).

49 Approximately five 

seconds later, Ms. Sanders’ Volvo truck collides with the rear of Mr. Mascio’s white 

Ford F250, which had wooden planks loaded in its truck bed.50 At 15:27:48, Ms. 

Atkinson Gil’s black Toyota RAV4 can be seen driving through the grassy area east of 

the Florida Turnpike and comes to a stop at approximately 15:27:52.

Figure 3. Screen Capture from Dashcam Video at 15:27:41 of Leading Truck with Only 

Passenger-side Taillight Illuminated (blue square).

Summary of Plaintiff’s Expert Daniel Melcher P.E.’s Preliminary Accident 

Reconstruction Report

Mr. Daniel J. Melcher, P.E. provided a preliminary vehicle collision reconstruction report 

on the subject incident. According to Mr. Melcher’s analysis of the dashcam video, Ms. 

48 Dashcam Video 15:27:40

49 Dashcam Video 15:27:41

50 Dashcam Video 15:27:46

Case 9:20-cv-80945-DMM Document 80-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2021 Page 8 of 30
Edward A. Nicklaus Esq.

November 2, 2020

Page 9

2006484.000 – 2265

Sanders had a travel speed of approximately 70 mph at the start of the video and at 

approximately 18 seconds prior to impact, slowed to approximately 68 mph.51 At 

approximately 8.2 seconds prior to impact, Mr. Melcher concluded that Ms. Sanders 

reduced her vehicle speed from 68 mph to approximately 58 mph, which is consistent 

with mild braking.52 Additionally, Mr. Melcher’s report states that at approximately 4.8 

seconds prior to impact, Ms. Sanders started slowing at an even greater rate and reduced 

her vehicle’s speed from 58 mph to an approximate impact speed of 18 mph with Mr. 

Mascio’s stationary F250.53 Mr. Melcher holds the opinions that the Volvo driver [Ms. 

Sanders] “failed to keep an adequate lookout, failed to adequately adjust her speed for the 

prevailing weather and traffic conditions, failed to adequately control her following 

distance, and failed to maintain sufficient assured clear space ahead of her on the 

roadway.”54

Summary of Defendant’s Expert Thomas Vadnais, P.E.’s Preliminary Accident 

Reconstruction Report

Mr. Thomas H. Vadnais, P.E. provided a preliminary report on the subject incident. 

According to Mr. Vadnais’ analysis of Mr. Melcher’s report, Ms. Sanders gradually 

slowed from 68 mph to 58 mph over a period of 3.4 seconds, which was 8.2 seconds prior 

to impact.55 Mr. Vadnais’ analysis concluded that Ms. Sanders’ tractor trailer would have 

had a deceleration rate averaging 12.2 ft/sec2 from the time she began slowing from 58 

mph to an impact speed of approximately 18 mph over the course of 4.8 seconds.56

According to Mr. Vadnais, Ms. Sanders needed another 29 feet in 2.2 seconds to have 

come to a complete stop.57 Additionally, Mr. Vadnais holds the opinion that if the vehicle 

in front of Ms. Sanders had the required brake lights working properly, Ms. Sanders 

would have gotten more notice and could have slowed to a slower speed, or even stopped 

and avoided impact with Mr. Mascio’s truck.58 Mr. Vadnais also indicates that it would 

have been difficult for Mr. Sanders to discern whether the flatbed vehicle [Mr. Mascio’s] 

was moving, slowing, rapidly slowing, or stopped, due to the state of the rear taillights 

and the wet road spray.59

51 Preliminary Expert Report of Daniel J. Melcher, P.E. (Melcher Preliminary Report) p. 7

52 Ibid. Melcher Preliminary Report p. 7

53 Ibid.

54 Melcher Preliminary Report p. 3

55 Preliminary Expert Report of Thomas H. Vadnais, P.E. (Vadnais Preliminary Report) p. 2

56 Vadnais Preliminary Report p. 2

57 Ibid.

58 Vadnais Preliminary Report p. 3

59 Vadnais Preliminary Report p. 2

Case 9:20-cv-80945-DMM Document 80-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2021 Page 9 of 30
Edward A. Nicklaus Esq.

November 2, 2020

Page 10

2006484.000 – 2265

Human Factors Analysis

To evaluate the subject incident from a human factors perspective, I present scientific 

literature relevant to the impact of adverse weather conditions on driver behavior, driver 

visual behavior, and perception response time. Finally in consideration of these findings, 

I summarize my analysis of the subject incident.

Adverse Weather Conditions

Adverse weather conditions, such as rain, are associated with an increased crash risk, due 

in part to reduced visibility of hazards to a driver. For police-reported crashes between 

2010 and 2014 in the United States, adverse weather conditions and/or roadway surface 

conditions represented 21% of all crashes, 18.5% of all injuries, and 15.6% of all 

fatalities.60 Additionally, 9.2% of all police-reported crashes that did not occur in clear 

weather, occurred in rain during this five-year period.61 These figures are consistent with 

research that has shown that wet weather increases the frequency of all accident types, 

including rear-end collisions.62 There are several ways in which rainy conditions can 

impact driver response to objects, events, or hazards in the roadway. Rainy conditions 

have been found to reduce visibility conditions due to droplets in the atmosphere, which 

causes light to be scattered, reducing the contrast of objects in the environment.63

Additionally, visibility can be negatively impacted by the presence of moisture on the 

windshield.64 Moisture and dirt on the windshield can lead drivers to focus more on 

objects closer to the vehicle, resulting in more distant objects appearing out of focus or 

blurry.65 This is also consistent with scientific literature that shows drivers fixate on 

visual cues in the roadway at shorter distances ahead of them in wet conditions than 

under clear conditions.66 Another consideration is that visibility may also be reduced by 

glare produced by wet shining surfaces,

67 such as the roadway in front of the driver.

Research has shown that the visibility effects of rain on the windshield, in the air, and on 

object’s surfaces, contributes to increased reaction time to objects in the roadway when 

compared to driving without rain.68 In addition to the general impact rain has on 

visibility, drivers under rainy conditions have been found to fixate longer on objects in 

60 Tefft, 2016

61 Ibid.

62 Satterthwaite, 1976

63 Krauss, 2015

64 Morris et al., 1977; Krauss, 2015

65 Krauss, 2015; Owens, 1979; Zwahlen, 1980

66 Zwahlen, 1980

67 Brodsky & Hakkert, 1988

68 Bernardin et al., 2014

Case 9:20-cv-80945-DMM Document 80-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2021 Page 10 of 30
Edward A. Nicklaus Esq.

November 2, 2020

Page 11

2006484.000 – 2265

their view and need more time to process information while driving than drivers in clear 

conditions.69

Research indicates that the average speed of vehicles on a highway during light rainfall is 

reduced by approximately 3 mph, as compared to normal weather conditions.70 The 

difference in time at which the front of a vehicle arrives at a point on the roadway and the 

time the front of the next vehicle arrives at the same point is referred to as time headway. 

Time headway in light rain has been shown to be an average of approximately two 

seconds, and increases slightly as compared to no rain conditions.

71 For example one 

study demonstrated that at highway speeds with no rain, 40% of drivers maintained a 

following distance of less than two seconds, whereas only 28% of drivers maintained this 

short headway in light rain conditions.

72 Although drivers generally take extra 

precautions during adverse weather conditions such as reducing their speed and 

increasing time headway, there is evidence that these adjustments are insufficient to 

completely offset hazards associated with rain, including reduced roadway friction and 

poorer visibility.73

The presence of a wet roadway is another aspect associated with rain that can lead to 

reduced visibility conditions. This can occur because rain can change visual aspects of 

the roadway.74 Specifically, water on the surface of the roadway can make it appear 

darker and mirror-like.75 Research has shown that during both daytime and nighttime 

conditions, a darker and mirror-like roadway can lead to a dazzling effect for the driver.76

In addition to changing the look of the roadway itself, rain has also been shown to reduce 

the visibility of retroreflective road markings.77 Furthermore, wet pavement has been 

shown to reflect light, whether from the sun during daytime, or headlights and streetlights 

during nighttime, resulting in glare, which can also impact driver visibility.78 Under glare 

conditions, the ability of the driver to detect critical objects on the roadway is reduced 

especially for objects with marginal visibility – such as vehicles in the distance.79

Driver Visual Behavior 

69 Konstantopoulos et al., 2010

70 Andrey et al., 2005

71 Billot et al., 2009; Rahman & Lownes, 2012

72 Billot et al., 2009

73 Andrey et al., 2005

74 Hautière et al., 2009; Krauss, 2015

75 Ibid.

76 Ibid.

77 Ibid.

78 Krauss, 2015

79 Ibid.

Case 9:20-cv-80945-DMM Document 80-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2021 Page 11 of 30
Edward A. Nicklaus Esq.

November 2, 2020

Page 12

2006484.000 – 2265

When operating a motor vehicle, the human visual system provides the primary source of 

information to the driver, with estimates that up to 90% of information used for the 

driving task is captured through the eyes.80 In order to perform the driving task, drivers

use a variety of cues in the environment and must direct their gaze based on factors such 

as task-relevance, saliency, and the costs of missing relevant information.81 For example, 

drivers direct their gaze to the road ahead, lane and road boundaries, other vehicles,

mirrors, signs or signals on the roadway, as well as in-vehicle displays or devices. A

driver’s primary task in using the visual system when navigating the roadway is to 

maintain their lane position to avoid collision via anticipation of possible obstacles and/or 

hazards in the roadway.

82 In poor visibility conditions such as rain, the effectiveness of 

drivers’ visual search decreases83 and distance estimation worsens since certain distance 

cues are absent.84 Research has suggested that the uncertainty experienced by drivers in 

visibility-reducing conditions makes them more tense and alert, which may reduce 

response time to hazards.85

Perception Response Time

The interval of time that elapses from the moment a hazard is able to be detected by the 

driver to when the driver initiates a response is called perception response time (PRT).86

The PRT interval is typically broken down into four stages: detection, identification, 

decision, and response.

87 The detection interval starts when the hazard enters the driver’s 

field of view. Once the hazard is available to be detected, the driver must identify what 

the hazard is before moving on to determine the appropriate course of action that may be 

needed to avoid it. Typically, the initial driver response to a roadway hazard is to either 

initiate a steering input or to release the throttle.88 If the hazard presents a crash-imminent 

situation, the driver’s response may include both braking and steering.89 Once the driver 

has decided their course of action, a response must be initiated, ending the PRT interval. 

Overall, depending on several factors, scientific literature has shown that PRTs can range 

from one second (for a highly visible, expected hazard) to five seconds or more (for an 

unexpected, less conspicuous hazard).90

80 Krauss, 2015

81 e.g. Horrey et al., 2006

82 Dewar & Olson, 2007

83 Konstantopoulos et al., 2010

84 Dewar & Olson, 2007

85 Ibid.

86 Krauss, 2015

87 Ibid.

88 Mazzae et al., 2003

89 e.g., Mazzae et al., 2003

90 Krauss, 2015

Case 9:20-cv-80945-DMM Document 80-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2021 Page 12 of 30
Edward A. Nicklaus Esq.

November 2, 2020

Page 13

2006484.000 – 2265

There are several factors that can impact PRT, two of which include conspicuity and 

expectancy.91 Conspicuity, defined as the ability for a given object or condition to be 

readily observable, has been found to greatly impact the ability of a driver to detect said 

object or condition. For example, research has shown that driver PRT is shorter in 

response to a yellow foam rubber obstacle92 than in response to what may appear as a

dark-clothed stationary pedestrian at night.93 In fact, generally, research has shown longer 

PRTs in response to low conspicuity hazards, such as under nighttime conditions.94

Adverse weather conditions, such as the presence of rain can also create conditions of 

low conspicuity. Specifically, adverse weather conditions can result in drivers needing 

more time to process information and reduce their ability to identify a hazard, decreasing 

the effectiveness of drivers’ visual search.

95

Consistent with low conspicuity, violations of driver expectations can result in delays or 

failures in detections. Research has shown that driver PRT can increase by as much as a 

factor of two when encountering an unexpected obstacle.96 Further, literature suggests 

that when confronted with an unexpected obstacle under daytime conditions in the 

roadway ahead of the driver, an alert and attentive driver will initiate a braking response 

within approximately 1.0 to 1.5 seconds,

97 however in situations where drivers are 

reacting to lower conspicuity, unexpected hazards, or are driving during nighttime 

conditions, PRTs are more difficult to quantify and can be anywhere from 1.5 seconds up 

to 2.5 seconds.

98 Furthermore, as mentioned above, inclement weather conditions and 

rain specifically, have been associated with delays in drivers’ PRTs.

99 There are certain 

expectations drivers uphold, including the concept of continuity, which suggests that 

events in the past will be repeated.100 For example, drivers tend to maintain shorter 

distances between themselves and the vehicle ahead because they expect that this vehicle 

will not suddenly slow down or stop.

101 When these expectancies are violated, there is an 

increase in driver PRT.102 Another example that may interfere with continuity or a 

driver’s expectancies, includes one or more brake lights not working, which in turn may

91 Krauss, 2015

92 Olson & Sivak, 1986

93 Summala, 1981a

94 Muttart, 2005; Summala, 1981b; Triggs & Harris, 1982

95 Krauss, 2015; Konstantopoulos et al., 2010

96 Green, 2000

97 Olson & Sivak, 1986; Fambro et al., 1998

98 Krauss et al., 2012; Olson & Sivak, 1986 

99 Krauss, 2015; Konstantopoulos et al., 2010

100 Dewar & Olson, 2007

101 Ibid.

102 Ibid.

Case 9:20-cv-80945-DMM Document 80-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2021 Page 13 of 30
Edward A. Nicklaus Esq.

November 2, 2020

Page 14

2006484.000 – 2265

lead to increased PRT. Research has suggested longer reaction times by as much as one 

or two seconds when the slowing of a lead car has inoperative brake lights.103

Analysis of Subject Incident

At the time of this incident, the roadway was wet, and Ms. Sanders had her windshield 

wipers on.104 As indicated above, scientific literature on the impact of rainy conditions 

shows that the presence of rain reduces visibility and can reduce the contrast of objects in 

the environment.105 Additionally, moisture on the windshield can lead drivers to focus 

more on objects closer to the vehicle, resulting in more distant objects appearing out of 

focus or blurry.106 Drivers exposed to rainy conditions have also been shown to require

more time to process information while driving than drivers under clear conditions.107

Furthermore, scientific research shows that the presence of a wet roadway can lead to 

reduced visibility conditions. For example, wet roadways have been shown to appear 

darker and mirror-like, which can lead to a dazzling effect or glare (especially in the 

presence of direct light, like sunlight), which can impact a driver’s ability to see the 

roadway in front of them.108 Taken together, the scientific literature suggests that the 

presence of rain and a wet roadway with sunlight shining on it can reduce the ability of a 

driver in Ms. Sanders’ position to perceive and react to a slowing vehicle in the roadway 

such as Mr. Mascio’s. Additionally, Ms. Sander’s view to vehicles in front of Mr. Mascio 

would have been obstructed by Mr. Mascio’s vehicle.

Additionally, the incident dashcam video shows that Mr. Mascio’s vehicle only had one 

working taillight on the passenger side at the time of the incident.109 As described above, 

drivers responding to aberrant or unexpected stimuli take longer to do so and specifically, 

increased response times have been observed in drivers presented with improperly 

working taillights on other vehicles.

110 The presence of both taillights, rather than the one 

available would have provided Ms. Sanders with additional information to support her 

ability to perceive and react to Mr. Mascio’s vehicle. 

According to the police report, the speed limit in the area of the incident was 70 mph.111

Mr. Vadnais’ analysis of Mr. Melcher’s report indicates Ms. Sanders was traveling 

103 Green, 2000; Summala et al., 1998

104 FTCR p. 1; Dashcam Video 15:27:44; Answer to Questionnaire document p. 3

105 Krauss, 2015

106 Krauss, 2015; Owens, 1979; Zwahlen, 1980

107 Konstantopoulos et al., 2010; Bernadin et al., 2014

108 Hautière et al., 2009; Krauss, 2015

109 Dashcam Video 15:27:41-15:27:46

110 Green, 2000; Summala et al., 1998

111 FTCR pp. 1, 2, 3

Case 9:20-cv-80945-DMM Document 80-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2021 Page 14 of 30
Edward A. Nicklaus Esq.

November 2, 2020

Page 15

2006484.000 – 2265

approximately 68 mph approximately 18 seconds prior to the collision.

112 Based on the 

reports by Mr. Vadnais and Mr. Melcher, and the dashcam video footage, Ms. Sanders 

was traveling below the speed limit, and slower than some other traffic on the road, 

having been passed by two vehicles in the left lane in the approximate 55 seconds before 

the collision.

113 Ms. Sanders’ time headway behind Mr. Mascio’s vehicle was 

approximately 10 seconds at the point when the vehicle that had been in front of Ms. 

Sanders moved into the left lane, longer than what drivers maintain on average in rainy 

conditions.114 Ms. Sanders driving below the speed limit and leaving a time headway 

longer than what has been shown in the research indicates compensatory behavior 

consistent with what drivers do in the wet conditions and is consistent with Ms. Sanders’ 

description of the incident. 

According to the Mr. Vadnais analysis of Mr. Melcher’s report, Ms. Sanders responded 

to Mr. Mascio’s vehicle by first decelerating slowly 8.2 seconds prior to impact, then 

more rapidly 4.8 seconds prior to impact.115 Additionally, approximately 5 seconds prior 

to impact, Ms. Sanders provided her first verbal response to Mr. Mascio’s truck.116 The 

dashcam video also shows that Ms. Sanders responded verbally to Mr. Mascio’s vehicle 

just prior to Mr. Mascio’s passenger side brake light illuminating.117 Taken together, this 

suggests that, despite adverse weather conditions, Ms. Sanders was responding to the 

slower speed of the vehicle in front of her and not the single brake light. Despite the 

difficulties drivers have in detecting and reacting to objects under wet conditions and 

with one as opposed to two taillights, Ms. Sanders was able to do so. That Ms. Sanders 

was able to respond as she did, despite the unexpected nature of the hazard and that the 

vehicle in front of her only had one taillight, supports Ms. Sanders being alert and 

attentive at the time of the incident.

Summary of Opinions and Conclusions

In summary, the opinions in this report are stated to a reasonable degree of scientific 

certainty and include the following:

• The conditions present at the time of the incident may have reduced the ability of 

a driver in the position Ms. Sanders to perceive and react in time to avoid the 

subject incident.

• Ms. Sanders’ behavior in reacting to the stopping vehicles was consistent with an 

alert and attentive driver.

112 Vadnais Preliminary Report p. 2; Melcher Preliminary Report p. 7

113 Dashcam Video 15:26:51-15:27:46

114 Billot et al., 2009; Rahman & Lownes, 2012; Dashcam Video 15:27:35; 15:27:46

115 Vadnais Preliminary Report p. 2; Melcher Preliminary Report p. 7

116 Dashcam Video 15:27:40

117 Dashcam Video 15:27:40; 15:27:41

Case 9:20-cv-80945-DMM Document 80-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2021 Page 15 of 30
Edward A. Nicklaus Esq.

November 2, 2020

Page 16

2006484.000 – 2265

This report summarizes work performed to date and presents the findings resulting from 

that work. The findings presented herein are made to a reasonable degree of scientific 

certainty. I reserve the right to supplement this report and to expand, modify, or amplify 

my opinions based on review of material as it becomes available through ongoing 

discovery and through any additional work or review of additional work performed by 

others. If required to testify, I plan to use exhibits created from the materials and analyses 

referenced in this report to help illustrate the opinions presented herein.

If you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to 

contact me at (312) 999-4212 or dcades@exponent.com.

Sincerely,

David M. Cades, Ph.D.

Principal Scientist

Appendices (3)

Case 9:20-cv-80945-DMM Document 80-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2021 Page 16 of 30
Edward A. Nicklaus Esq.

November 2, 2020

Page 17

2006484.000 – 2265

Demonstrative Exhibits for Deposition and Trial

At this time, I have not completed preparation of final exhibits for deposition or trial. 

If needed, I expect that the exhibits may include, but not be limited to, my report and 

the materials listed in the body and/or provided in the attached appendices, 

photographs, videos, and results from my analysis described above. Additional 

demonstrative exhibits may be prepared when necessary to adequately illustrate and 

explain the technical details of the analysis, findings, or opinions to the jury.

Exponent bills my time for all work performed in 2020 at $380/hour. A copy of my 

current curriculum vitae is provided in Appendix A.

Case 9:20-cv-80945-DMM Document 80-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2021 Page 17 of 30
2006484.000 – 2265

Appendix A 

Curriculum Vitae of 

David M. Cades, Ph.D.

Case 9:20-cv-80945-DMM Document 80-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2021 Page 18 of 30
© 2020 Exponent, Inc. All Rights Reserved | www.exponent.com | 888.656.EXPO | Page 1

Professional Profile

Dr. Cades specializes in human factors investigations of vehicle and aircraft operator behavior, including 

perception response time, visual perception, nighttime visibility, and distractions and has investigated the 

effects of advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) and highly automated vehicles (HAVs) on driver 

behavior. He also has expertise in the evaluation and development of warnings and instructions for a 

wide range of consumer and industrial products. He utilizes his background in human factors and usability 

testing to support his work in these areas. He received his Ph.D. in Human Factors and Applied Cognition 

from George Mason University in 2011.

At Exponent, Dr. Cades has investigated vehicle operator behavior of automobiles, commercial trucks, 

bicycles, motorcycles, and aircraft. He has evaluated the adequacy of warnings on products and in their 

manuals and he has applied his experience to projects involving safety- and health- related user 

behaviors of industrial equipment, kitchen appliances, video game entertainment systems, consumer 

electronics, sports and recreation equipment, home theater products, and personal protective equipment.

Dr. Cades has expertise in the testing and analysis of how interruptions and distractions affect 

performance. He has investigated the negative effects of distractions in environments, including, but not 

limited to, driving, aviation, healthcare, offices, and classrooms. He has applied this knowledge to see 

how distractions can cause errors that lead to accidents. With respect to aviation, specifically, he has 

collected over forty hours of data from airline pilots performing safety critical flight tasks with interruptions 

and distractions. Dr. Cades has performed on-road evaluation of ADAS including auto-braking, collision 

mitigation and warning, blind spot indication, and lane departure warning.

Dr. Cades also has expertise in evaluating and designing graphical user interfaces including devices for 

use in automobiles and aircraft. He has previously been employed in the field of usability and user 

experience digital product design. He has investigated the effects of manual and voice-activated 

infotainment devices in automobiles. He also designed a dashboard display to assist drivers in 

maintaining safe speeds while driving in adverse conditions and explored how aging and glare affect 

people's driving ability. For commercial aircraft, he has worked with pilots, air traffic controllers, and airline 

operations in support of FAA's NextGen initiative.

In Dr. Cades's graduate work, he has utilized and presented on various statistical methods and has 

authored papers on driver behavior with respect to in-vehicle displays and devices, flight deck 

performance with novel systems and interruptions, the effects of glare on human vision, how attributes of 

interruptions affect task performance, ways to improve how people handle distractions, interruptions' 

effects in different environments, and various statistical approaches for predicting and understanding 

research outcomes.

David M. Cades, Ph.D.

Principal Scientist | Human Factors 

525 W. Monroe St., Suite 1050 | Chicago, IL 60661

(312) 999-4212 tel | dcades@exponent.com 

Case 9:20-cv-80945-DMM Document 80-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2021 Page 19 of 30
© 2020 Exponent, Inc. All Rights Reserved | www.exponent.com | 888.656.EXPO | Page 2

Academic Credentials & Professional Honors

Ph.D., Psychology, George Mason University, 2011

M.A., Psychology, George Mason University, 2007

B.S., Human Factors, Tufts University, summa cum laude with high honors, 2003

New Investigator Award from APA Division of Experimental Psychology (Division 3), 2012

NASA Graduate Student Researchers Program grant $30,000 annual, 2008-2011

North American Finalist for Enhanced Safety of Vehicles automotive design competition, 2009

Recipient of the Deflorez Prize in Human Engineering, 2003

Licenses and Certifications

PADI Certified Open Water Scuba Diver

Prior Experience

User Experience Consultant, User Centric, 2010

Research Assistant, Lighthouse International, 2003-2005

Usability Engineering Intern, American Institutes for Research, 2002-2003

Human Factors Intern, Electronic Ink, 2001

Human Factors Intern, Verizon Laboratories, 2000-2001

Professional Affiliations

Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 2001-present

• Computational Modeling Technical Group

• Cognitive Engineering Technical Group

• Aerospace Technical Group

• Surface Transportation Technical Group

• Product Design Technical Group

Society of Automotive Engineering 2011-present

• Voting member of Safety and Human Factors Steering Committee 2015-present

George Mason Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Student Chapter 2005-2011

• President 2006-2007

Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Potomac Chapter Fall 2006-2011

American Psychological Association 2006-present

Case 9:20-cv-80945-DMM Document 80-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2021 Page 20 of 30
© 2020 Exponent, Inc. All Rights Reserved | www.exponent.com | 888.656.EXPO | Page 3

• Division 21 - Applied Experimental and Engineering Psychology

Usability Professionals Association 2006-2011

Association for Psychological Science 2006-2011

Cognitive Science Society 2008-2011

Publications

Krake A, Jonas R, Hoyos C, Crump C, Lester B, Cades D, Harrington R. Effects of Training on Learning 

and Use of an Adaptive Cruise Control System. SAE Technical Paper 2020-01-1033, 2020, doi: 

10.4271/2020-01-1033.

Hoyos C, Lester BD, Crump C, Cades DM, Young, D. 2018. Consumer perceptions, understanding, and 

expectations of Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) and vehicle automation. In Proceedings of 

the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting 2018 Sept; 62(1):1888-1892, Sage CA: Los 

Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.

Moorman HG, Niles A, Crump C, Krake A, Lester BD, Milan L, Cloninger C, Cades DM, Young D. Lanekeeping behavior and cognitive load with use of lane departure warning. SAE Technical Paper 2017-01-

1407, 2017, doi:10.4271/2017-01-1407.

Crump C, Krake A, Lester BD, Moorman HG, Cades DM, Young D. Driver behavior with passive and 

active vehicle safety system. Proceedings of the Transportation Review Board 2017 Annual Meeting.

Cades DM, Crump C, Lester BD, Reed S, Barakat B, Milan L, Young D. Differing perceptions of advanced 

driver assistance systems (ADAS). Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual 

Meeting 2016 Sept; 58(1):265-269.

Kim R, Lester BD, Schwark J, Cades DM, Hashish R, Moorman H, Young, D. Gaze behavior during curb 

approach: The effect of mobile device use. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 

Annual Meeting 2016 Sept; 60(1):1580-1584.

Cades DM, Crump C, Lester BD, Young D. Driver distraction and advanced vehicle assistive systems 

(ADAS): Investigating effects on driver behavior. 7th International Conference on Applied Human Factors 

and Ergonomics (AHFE 2016) and Affiliated Conferences; 4th International Conference on Human 

Factors in Transportation. 2016.

Foroughi CK, Werner NE, McKendrick R, Cades DM, Boehm-Davis DA. Individual differences in working 

memory capacity and task resumption following interruptions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: 

Learning, Memory, and Cognition Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000251. 

2016, February 15.

Barakat B, Crump C, Cades D, Rauschenberger R, Schwark J, Hildebrand E, Young D. Eye tracking 

evaluation of driver visual behavior with a forward collision warning and mitigation system. Proceedings, 

Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting 2015 Sept; 59(1):1321-1325.

Krauss D, Cades D Dewar R. Driver Distraction. In: Forensic Aspects of Driver Perception and Response. 

4th Edition. Krauss D (ed), Tucson, AZ: Lawyers and Judges Publishing Company, Inc., 2015. 

Cades D, Kim R, Krauss D. In-vehicle technology and the driver. In: Forensic Aspects of Driver 

Perception and Response. 4th Edition. Krauss D (ed), Tucson, AZ: Lawyers and Judges Publishing 

Company, Inc., 2015.

Case 9:20-cv-80945-DMM Document 80-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2021 Page 21 of 30
© 2020 Exponent, Inc. All Rights Reserved | www.exponent.com | 888.656.EXPO | Page 4

Crump C, Cades D, Rauschenberger R, Hildebrand E, et al. Driver reactions in a vehicle with collision 

warning and mitigation technology. SAE Technical Paper 2015-01-1411, 2015. doi:10.4271/2015-01-

1411.

Werner NE, Cades DM, Boehm-Davis DA. Multitasking and interrupted task performance. In: The Wiley 

Handbook of Psychology, Technology, and Society. Rosen LD, Cheever NA, Carrier LM (eds), John 

Wiley & Sons, Lrd, Chichester, UK, March 2015; ch22, 436-452. 

doi:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118771952.ch22/summary

Crump C, Cades D, Rauschenberger R, Hildebrand EA, Young DE. Dynamic on-road method for 

evaluation of Advanced Driver Assistance System (ADAS). Proceedings, 3rd Annual World Conference of 

the Society for Industrial and Systems Engineering, pp. 77-81, San Antonio, TX, October 20-22, 2014. 

ISBN: 97819384960-2-8.

Perlmutter, S, Cades DM, Heller, MF, Giachetti, RS, Sala JB, Arndt, SA. Effects of mobile technology use 

on walking. Proceedings, 58th Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 2014.

Quartuccio, J, Franz S, Gonzalez, C, Kenner, NM, Cades DM, Sala JB, Arndt, SA, McKnight, PE. Seeing 

is believing: The use of data visualization to identify trends for cycling safety. Proceedings, 58th Human 

Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 2014.

Khan FS, Krauss DA, Alper SJ, Droll J, Arndt SR, Lakhiani SD, Cades DM. Do people heed warnings at 

gas stations? Proceedings, 2nd Annual World Conference of the Society for Industrial and Systems 

Engineering, pp. 114-117, Las Vegas, NV, November 5-7, 2013. ISBN: 97819384960-1-1.

Cades DM, Young D, Glazek, K, Nauhaus, G, Alper S. Motorcoach seat belt use rates in the United 

States. Proceedings, 2nd Annual World Conference of the Society for Industrial and Systems 

Engineering, pp. 283-288, ISBN: 97819384960-1-1, Las Vegas, NV, November 5-7, 2013.

Werner NE, Cades DM, Boehm-Davis DA, Chang J, Kahn H, Thi, G. Understanding interruption 

resiliency: Individual differences in spatial ability and working memory capacity in resumption. 

Proceedings, Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 55th Annual Meeting, 2011.

Cades DM, Boehm-Davis DA, Trafton JG, Monk CA. Mitigating disruptive effects of interruptions through 

training: What needs to be practiced? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 2011; 17(2):97-109.

Cades DM, Arndt SR, Kwasniak AM. Driver distraction is more than just taking eyes off the road. 

Institution of Transportation Engineers Journal 2011; 81(7).

Nelson E, Kidd D, Cades D. Examining patterns of simulator sickness during increased exposure to a 

motion-based driving simulator over time. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences 2010; 96(3):1-

14.

Werner NE, Cades DM, Boehm-Davis DA, Peterson MS, Alothman SJ, Zhang X. Individual differences in 

resuming interrupted tasks. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences 2010; 96(3):35-49.

Barrow J, Cades D, Kidd D, Nelson E, Roberts D. Managing speed in inclement conditions using an invehicle interface. Proceedings, 2nd International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and 

Interactive Vehicle Applications, 2010.

Cades DM, Kidd DG, King EB, McKnight PE, Boehm-Davis DA. Factors affecting interrupted task 

performance: Effects of adaptability, impulsivity, and intelligence. Proceedings, 54th Human Factors and 

Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 2010.

Cades DM, Werner NE, Boehm-Davis DA, Arshad Z. What makes real-world interruptions disruptive? 

Evidence from an Office Setting. Proceedings, 54th Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual 

Case 9:20-cv-80945-DMM Document 80-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2021 Page 22 of 30
© 2020 Exponent, Inc. All Rights Reserved | www.exponent.com | 888.656.EXPO | Page 5

Meeting, 2010.

Werner NE, Cades DM, Boehm-Davis DA, Peterson MS, Alothman SJ, Zhang X. Where was I and what 

was I doing? Individual differences in resuming after an interruption and implications for real-world 

distractions. Proceedings, Washington Academy of Sciences 2010 Capital Science Conference, 2010.

Nelson E, Kidd DG, Cades DM. The effect of repeated exposures to simulated driving on ratings of 

simulator sickness. Proceedings, Washington Academy of Sciences 2010 Capital Science Conference, 

2010.

Werner NE, Cades DM, Boehm-Davis DA, Peterson MS. Resuming after an interruption: Exploring the 

roles of spatial and goal memory. Proceedings, Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 53rd Annual 

Meeting, San Antonio, TX, October 19-23, 2010.

Barrow JH, Cades DM, Kidd DG, Nelson E, Roberts D. SLIC: Speed limit for inclement conditions. 

Proceedings, 2009 Eye and the Auto Conference hosted by the Detroit Institute of Ophthalmology, 

Detroit, MI, 2009. (Note that all authors contributed equally). 

Cades DM, Jones SM, Werner NE, Boehm-Davis DA. Knowing when to switch tasks: Effectiveness of 

internal versus external cues. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences 2008; 94(3):93-109. 

Kidd DG, Cades DM, Horvath DJ, Jones SM, Pitone MJ, Monk CA. Listen up! Do voice recognition 

systems help drivers focus on the road? User Experience Magazine: A publication of the Usability 

Professionals' Association 2008; 7(4):10-12.

Cades DM, Werner NE, Trafton JG, Boehm-Davis DA, Monk CA. Dealing with interruptions can be 

complex, but does interruption complexity matter: A mental resources approach to quantifying disruptions. 

Proceedings, Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 52nd Annual Meeting, New York, NY, September 

22-26, 2008.

Cades DM, Kidd DG, McKnight PE. Where is the real-world variance? A generalizability theory approach 

to understanding interruptions in naturalistic environments. Abstract, Proceedings, III European Congress 

of Methodology, pp. 20-21, Oviedo, Spain, July 8-12, 2008.

Kidd DG, Cades DM, McKnight PE. Generalizability theory in laboratory interruptions research: Estimating 

variance to improve future research. Proceedings, III European Congress of Methodology, pp. 20, 

Oviedo, Spain, July 8-12, 2008.

Cades DM, Trafton JG, Boehm-Davis DA, Monk CA. Does the difficulty of an interruption affect our ability 

to resume? Proceedings, Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 51st Annual Meeting, pp. 234-238, 

Baltimore, MD, October 1-5, 2007.

Cades DM. Measuring individual differences over and above experimental manipulations. Proceedings, 

International Society for the Study of Individual Differences 13th Biennial Meeting, Giessen, Germany, 

July 22-27, 2007.

Cades DM, Trafton JG, Boehm-Davis DA. Mitigating disruptions: Can resuming an interrupted task be 

trained? Proceedings, Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 50th Annual Meeting, pp. 368-371, San 

Francisco, CA, October 16-20, 2006.

Presentations

Werner NE, Cades DM, Boehm-Davis DA, Peterson MS, Alothman SJ, Zhang X. Where was I and what 

was I doing? Individual differences in resuming after an interruption and implications for real-world 

distractions. Presented at research symposium at the University of the District of Columbia (UDC), 2010.

Case 9:20-cv-80945-DMM Document 80-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2021 Page 23 of 30
© 2020 Exponent, Inc. All Rights Reserved | www.exponent.com | 888.656.EXPO | Page 6

McKnight PE, Kidd DG, Cades DM, Kendra MS. Generalizability theory applications in program and policy 

evaluation: An introduction and application to quasi-experimental and experimental designs. Presented at 

Evaluation 2009, 23rd Annual Conference of the American Evaluation Association, 2009. (Symposium -

all authors presented equally).

Najab J, Cades DM, Kidd DG. A gentle introduction to Bayesian Analysis. Presented at Evaluation 2009, 

23rd Annual Conference of the American Evaluation Association, 2009. (Symposium - all authors 

presented equally).

Barrow JH, Cades DM, Kidd DG, Nelson E, Roberts D. SLIC: Speed limit for inclement conditions. Paper 

and Poster presented at Enhanced Safety of Vehicles conference, Stuttgart, Germany, 2009. (Note that 

all authors contributed equally). 

Barrow JH, Cades DM, Kidd DG, Nelson E, Roberts D. SLIC: Speed limit for inclement conditions. Paper 

presented to National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for design competition of Enhanced Safety of 

Vehicles conference, Fairfax, VA, 2009. (Note that all authors contributed equally). 

Cades DM, Boehm-Davis DA, Trafton JG. Interruptions in the office: An observational field study. Poster 

presented at the 2007 American Psychological Association Division 21, Division 19, and Human Factors 

and Ergonomics Society Potomac Chapter Annual Symposium on Applied Experimental Research, 

Fairfax, VA, 2007.

Krall J, Cades DM, McKnight PE. Predicting baseball winners using just noticeable differences. Poster 

presented at the 2007 annual conference of the Association for Psychological Science, Washington, D. 

C., 2007.

Higgins KE, White JM, Cades DM, Ciaccio V, Liu L. Effect of age on transient adaptation at low light 

levels. Poster presented at Optical Society of America Annual Meeting, Tucson, AZ, 2005.

Higgins KE, White JM, Asami R, Liu L, Rosenthal B, Ciaccio V, Cades DM, Gauthier H. Physiology of 

glare and readaptation (including age differences). Presented at National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration Workshop on Headlamp Safety Metrics: Balancing Visibility and Glare, July 2004.

Higgins KE, White JM, Cades D, Ciaccio V, Liu L. Early dark adaptation: Effect of age. Presented at the 

annual meeting of The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO), May 2006.

Other Articles

Cades DM, Senatore C, Campbell JL, Harrington R, Wood D. Automated and Assistive Vehicle 

Technology: Opportunities and Challenges. Article in American Bar Association Tort Trial and Insurance 

Practice Section’s The Brief Fall 2019; 49 (1), pp. 16-25. 

Cloninger C, Cades DM, Nauhaus G, Harley E. Reconstructing witnessed events: Sources of error in 

eyewitness perception and memory. Feature Article in The Illinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel 

IDC Quarterly 2019; 29 (1). 

Cades DM, Skow E, Brinkerhoff RS. Technology advances affecting walking and driving. Common 

defense: A member publication of Kentucky Defense Counsel, Inc.; Spring/Summer 2017. 

Cades DM, Carey MR, Crump C, Cloninger C, Young D. Drivers and driverless vehicle revolution: 

understanding the changing role of the driver. Westlaw Journal Automotive 36 (24), May 31, 2017. 

Cades DM, Crump C, Cloninger C, Young D. Drivers and driverless vehicle revolution: understanding the 

changing role of the driver. Article at the Defense Research Institute's Product Liability Meeting 2017. Las 

Vegas, Nevada. 

Case 9:20-cv-80945-DMM Document 80-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2021 Page 24 of 30
© 2020 Exponent, Inc. All Rights Reserved | www.exponent.com | 888.656.EXPO | Page 7

Cades DM, Skow E, Brinkerhoff RS. Understanding the effects of mobile technology on walking and 

driving. Article in the Michigan Defense Trial Counsel E-Letter; Volume 7, No. 2. 2016. 

Cades DM, Brinkerhoff RS, Skow E. Understanding the changing nature of walking and driving. Feature 

Article in the Iowa Defense Counsel Association Defense Update Summer 2016; Volume XVIII, No. 3. 

Cades DM, Arndt, SR, Sala, JB, Krauss, DA. What you need to know about the distracted driver. Feature 

Article in The Illinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel Quarterly 2013; 23(4).

Khan FS, Cades DM, Krauss, DA. Cyclist and pedestrians vs. cars: Cars win! A human factors 

perspective. Feature Article in The Illinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel Quarterly 2012; 22(3): 30-

33.

Khan FS, Krauss DK, Alper S, Droll JA, Arndt SR, Lakhiani SD, Cades DM. Do people heed warnings at 

gas stations? In: Newsletter of Michigan Defense Trial Counsel 2012 Spring; 2(4). 

Barrow JH, Cades DM, Kidd DG, Nelson E, Roberts D. SLIC: The in-vehicle speed management device. 

Technical report submitted to judges at National Highway Traffic Safety Administration representing 

Enhanced Safety of Vehicles design competition. (Note that all authors contributed equally), 2009.

Mintz FE, Smith CF, Cades DM, Fedota J, Henrickson SE. What can I do for you? An evaluation of 

university and professional organizational roles in the development of student training. Technical report 

submitted to the executive council of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 2005.

Peer Reviewer

Reviewer for Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 2010-present

Reviewer for Behavior Research Methods Journal, 2010-present 

Reviewer for Human Factors Journal, 2009-present 

Reviewer for International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 2008-present

Case 9:20-cv-80945-DMM Document 80-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2021 Page 25 of 30
2006484.000 – 2265

Appendix B

List of Materials Reviewed

Case 9:20-cv-80945-DMM Document 80-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2021 Page 26 of 30
2006484.000 – 2265

List of Materials Reviewed

• Florida Traffic Crash Report

• Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial

• Pretrial Scheduling Order and Order Referring Case to Mediation

• Defendant, Kimberly Sanders’, Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Demand for 

Jury Trial to Plaintiff’s Complaint

• Defendant, XPO Logistics Express, LLC’s, Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and 

Demand for Jury Trial to Plaintiff’s Complaint

• Defendant, Dejah Xpress, LLC’s, Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Demand for 

Jury Trial to Plaintiff’s Complaint

• Notice of Taking Video Deposition Duces Tecum Kimberly Sanders

• Depositions

o Bove, Stephen and Exhibits

• Photographs and Video

o Dejah Photos (21 .jpeg)

o Dashcam Video (2018_111_152652_339A_SOS.mov)

• Answer to Questionnaire document

• Preliminary Expert Reports

o Daniel J. Melcher, P.E. 

o Thomas H. Vadnais, P.E.

Case 9:20-cv-80945-DMM Document 80-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2021 Page 27 of 30
2006484.000 – 2265

Appendix C

References

Case 9:20-cv-80945-DMM Document 80-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2021 Page 28 of 30
2006484.000 – 2265

References

Andrey, J., Christie, M., Michaels, S., Unrau, D., & Mills, B. (2005). Toward a national 

assessment of the travel risks associated with inclement weather. Institute of 

Catastrophic Loss Reduction Publication.

Bernardin, F., Bremond, R., Ledoux, V., Pinto, M., Lemonnier, S., Cavallo, V., & 

Colomb, M. (2014). Measuring the effect of the rainfall on the windshield in terms of 

visual performance. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 63, 83-88.

Billot, R., El Faouzi, N. E., & De Vuyst, F. (2009). Multilevel assessment of the impact 

of rain on drivers’ behavior: standardized methodology and empirical 

analysis. Transportation Research Record, 2107(1), 134-142.

Brodsky, H., & Hakkert, A. S. (1988). Risk of a road accident in rainy weather. Accident 

Analysis & Prevention, 20(3), 161-176.

Dewar, R., & Olson, P. (2007). Human factors in traffic safety (No. B-871). SAE 

Technical Paper.

Fambro, D. B., Koppa, R. J., Picha, D. L., & Fitzpatrick, K. (1998). Driver perception–

brake response in stopping sight distance situations. Transportation Research 

Record, 1628(1), 1-7.

Green, M. (2000). "How long does it take to stop?" Methodological analysis of driver 

perception-brake times. Transportation Human Factors, 2(3), 195-216.

Hautière, N., Dumont, E., Brémond, R., & Ledoux, V. (2009, September). Review of the 

mechanisms of visibility reduction by rain and wet road. In 8th International 

Symposium on Automotive Lighting. München: Herbert Utz Verlag.

Horrey, W. J., Wickens, C. D., & Consalus, K. P. (2006). Modeling drivers' visual 

attention allocation while interacting with in-vehicle technologies. Journal of 

Experimental Psychology: Applied, 12(2), 67.

Konstantopoulos, P., Chapman, P., & Crundall, D. (2010). Driver's visual attention as a 

function of driving experience and visibility. Using a driving simulator to explore 

drivers’ eye movements in day, night and rain driving. Accident Analysis & 

Prevention, 42(3), 827-834.

Krauss, D. A., Todd, J.J., & Heckman, G. M. (2012). The "critical window," looming and 

implications for accident avoidance. Institute of Transportation Engineers 

Journal, 82(7), 36-41.

Krauss, D. (2015). Forensic Aspects of Driver Perception and Response (4th ed.). Tucson, 

AZ: Lawyers & Judges Publishing Company, Inc.

Case 9:20-cv-80945-DMM Document 80-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2021 Page 29 of 30
C-2 2006484.000 – 2265

Mazzae, E. N., Baldwin, G. H. S., Barickman, F. S., & Forkenbrock, G. J. (2003). 

NHTSA Light Vehicle Antilock Brake Systems Research Program, Task 5.2/5.3: 

Examination of driver crash avoidance behavior using conventional and antilock 

brake systems. DOT HS, 809, 561.

Morris, R. S., Mounce, J. M., Button, J. W., & Walton, N. E. (1977). Field study of driver 

visual performance during rainfall. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Muttart, J. W., Messerschmidt, W. F., & Gillen, L. G. (2005). Relationship between 

relative velocity detection and driver response times in vehicle following 

situations (No. 2005-01-0427). SAE Technical Paper. Olson, P. L., & Sivak, M. 

(1986). Perception-response time to unexpected roadway hazards. Human 

Factors, 28(1), 91-96.

Owens, D. A. (1979). The Mandelbaum effect: Evidence for an accommodative bias 

toward intermediate viewing distances. Journal of Optical Society of America, 69(5), 

646-652.

Rahman, A., & Lownes, N. E. (2012). Analysis of rainfall impacts on platooned vehicle 

spacing and speed. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and 

Behaviour, 15(4), 395-403.

Satterthwaite, S. P. (1976). An assessment of seasonal and weather effects on the 

frequency of road accidents in California. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 8(2), 87-

96.

Summala, H. (1981a). Drivers’ steering reaction to a light stimulus on a dark 

road. Ergonomics, 24(2), 125-131.

Summala, H. (1981b). Driver/vehicle steering response latencies. Human Factors: The 

Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 23(6), 683-692.

Summala, H., Lamble, D., & Laakso, M. (1998). Driving experience and perception of 

the lead car's braking when looking at in-car targets. Accident Analysis & 

Prevention, 30(4), 401-407.

Tefft, B. C. (2016). Motor vehicle crashes, injuries, and deaths in relation to weather 

conditions, United States, 2010–2014. AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.

Triggs, T.J. & Harris, W.G. (1982). Reaction time of drivers to road stimuli. HFR-12, 

Monash University: Victoria, Australia.

Zwahlen, H.T. (1980). Driver Eye Scanning Behavior in Rain and During Unexpected 

Windshield Wiper Failure. Zeitschrife für Verkehrssicherheit, 26(4), 148-155.

Case 9:20-cv-80945-DMM Document 80-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2021 Page 30 of 30