Accident Reconstruction Expert Disregards Physical Evidence
Posted on March 20, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler
William Harrison Sims sustained facial injuries from shrapnel when his BMW’s airbag malfunctioned. He subsequently filed a lawsuit against BMW, claiming negligence and strict product liability.
In the legal proceedings, BMW’s accident reconstruction expert, Amanda Duran, P.E., was accused by the Plaintiff of selectively endorsing a defense-favorable theory of the accident without sufficient justification.
Defendants filed a motion requesting reconsideration of its February 13, 2025 order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff’s motion to exclude the testimony of Duran.
Accident Reconstruction Expert Witness
Amanda Duran, P.E. is an automotive engineer specializing in motor vehicle crash investigation and reconstruction. Since 2003, she has worked at Carr Engineering, Inc. To date, she has been involved in analyzing over 600 crashes, including more than 500 vehicle inspections and 400 scene inspections.
Discussion by the Court
Amanda Duran, P.E., was presented as the defense’s accident reconstruction expert. The Court partially granted the Plaintiff’s Daubert challenge, excluding Duran’s opinion on who failed to yield the right of way. The Court found this opinion unhelpful, as Duran couldn’t identify the responsible party, and the basic fact that someone failed to yield the right of way was deemed common knowledge.
The defense’s motion for reconsideration, which simply reiterated prior arguments, was denied. The Court emphasized that reconsideration is not a platform for disputing rulings. Furthermore, the Court rejected the defense’s argument that because their challenge to the Plaintiff’s expert was denied, Duran should be allowed to offer unhelpful opinions.
The Court also struck Duran’s opinion regarding the BMW’s lane of travel, again rejecting the defense’s rehashed arguments. The Court found Duran’s methodology flawed, as she disregarded physical evidence and relied excessively on Harris-Jackson’s testimony. The defense’s disagreement with this ruling was deemed insufficient for reconsideration.
Finally, the defense argued that it was unfair for the Plaintiff’s expert, Perry Ponder, to testify when his conclusions differed from the crash report prepared by the Trooper. It should be noted that the Court refused to admit Duran’s testimony about the Plaintiff’s lane of travel because she prioritized Harris-Jackson’s account over concrete physical evidence. The Court rejected this argument, highlighting the difference in methodology: Ponder considered the Trooper’s crash report but reached a different, reasoned conclusion, while Duran disregarded physical evidence. The Court concluded that the experts’ approaches were not comparable and denied the motion for reconsideration.
Held
The Court denied the Defendants’ motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order to exclude the testimony of Amanda Duran, P.E.
Key Takeaway:
The Court emphasized the importance of sound methodology and reliance on evidence in expert testimony. After all, a motion for reconsideration is not a platform to reargue previous arguments.
Please refer to the blogs previously published about this case:
Accident Reconstruction Expert Witness’ Testimony Admitted Despite His Failure to Calculate G-Force
Neurology Expert Witness’ Injury Causation Testimony Admitted
Neuropsychology Expert Witness is Qualified to Offer Opinions on Causation
Expert Witness Reliability: Sims v. BMW Case Examines “Parroting” Claims
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Sims V. BMW Of North America LLC |
| Docket Number: | 6:22cv1685 |
| Court: | United States District Court, Florida Middle |
| Order Date: | March 18, 2025 |
