Opinion ID: 738753
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Testimony by Defendants' Accident Reconstruction Expert

Text: 21 Plaintiffs argue that the district court should not have admitted the testimony of defendants' expert, Darcy Sullivan, regarding the closure times of vehicles traveling on the road and perception/reaction times of drivers. The admissibility of expert testimony is governed by Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which provides: 22 If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise. 23 Fed.R.Evid. 702. In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), the Supreme Court explained that the trial judge must insure that the expert's testimony rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the issues before the court. The type of evidence upon which an expert can rely is governed by Rule 703 of the Federal Rules of Evidence: 24 The facts or data in the particular case upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to the expert at or before the hearing. If of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in a particular field, in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject, the facts or data need not be admissible in evidence. 25 Fed.R.Evid. 703. 26 During the trial, Sullivan used a computer program to explain the closure times of vehicles and the perception times of drivers. Plaintiffs do not question the scientific validity of Sullivan's computer program. Rather, plaintiffs object to three assumptions that Sullivan made in running the program: he estimated the distance between the back of Romeri's truck and the front of the uninvolved vehicle; he based his assumption of truck lane changes upon observing forty to fifty changes with a stop watch; and he stated that Rogers should have been able to see Romeri's truck. On the record, Mr. Sullivan stated his credentials and expertise in the fields of civil engineering, traffic and transportation engineering, safety and accident reconstruction. Sullivan explained the perception/reaction time generally accepted by experts. He explained the method for determining reaction times under specific situations. He also explained his computer program and the assumptions made in order to run the program. During the trial, he ran the computer program with different variables in front of the jury. In addition, Sullivan testified that in order to prepare his testimony he reviewed Romeri's statement to the Tennessee Highway Patrol, the Tennessee Highway Patrol report, Rogers' deposition, photographs of the scene, Romeri's deposition, Rainey's expert report, Rainey's deposition, Whitten's expert report, a diagram of the scene, an on-scene investigation, and the deposition of Bentley and his exhibits. Under these circumstances, plaintiffs have failed to persuade us that Sullivan's testimony should have been excluded. 27