Accident Reconstruction Expert Witness’ Opinion Regarding Alcohol as a Possible Cause of the Collision Excluded
Posted on December 31, 2024 by Expert Witness Profiler
The dispute in this matter arose from a collision that occurred in Greene County, Tennessee on May 25, 2021, at or around 2:45 p.m., involving two tractor trailers and a service vehicle. At the same time that Darryl Jerome Packer was attempting to re-enter the right lane of travel, Ronald Forsyth was driving his truck northbound on Interstate 81.
Forsyth’s vehicle violently struck Packer’s vehicle in the rear, pushing it into Wayne Honeycutt’s wrecker. Forsyth’s vehicle then became engulfed in flames. Forsyth was airlifted from the scene to Johnson City Medical Center where he received treatment for his injuries.
Forsyth alleged deviations from the standard of care and negligence per se for Packer and a deviation from the standard of care for Honeycutt.
K. Scott Reiling specifically opined that Plaintiff “could easily have slowed down to avoid collision” and that “Forsyth made little to no attempt to slow his vehicle.” Reiling ultimately concluded that “the crash was caused by the failure of Forsyth to react to the presence of vehicle 1 [driven by Packer] and vehicle 3 [driven by Honeycutt] by braking and slowing vehicle 2.” Then, as his very last conclusion, Reiling opined that “alcohol may have been a contributing factor in the accident.” Reiling said that he has based this conclusion on a statement made by Forsyth to medical personnel, which a state trooper captured on his body camera video.
Plaintiff sought only to preclude Reiling from opining that alcohol may have been a contributing factor in causing the accident at issue.
Accident Reconstruction Expert Witness
K. Scott Reiling currently serves as a professional engineer and project manager on numerous matters for Engineering Forensics Group, Inc. and has training and experience to assist clients in a variety of forensic matters involving vehicle accident investigation and reconstruction. His experience includes projects involving various types of vehicles, pedestrian accidents, motorcycle accidents, roadway issues, retrieval and analysis of vehicle event data recorders and other engineering analysis.
Reiling earned a bachelors degree in mechanical engineering and he is a registered professional engineer. He is accredited by the Accreditation Commission for Traffic Accident Reconstruction (ACTAR) and has provided expert witness testimony related to accident investigation and reconstruction in circuit, criminal and U.S. district courts.
Discussion by the Court
Plaintiff asserted that Reiling’s opinion regarding alcohol is speculative, and that any probative value in permitting him to offer the opinion is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to Plaintiff.
Defendants appeared to suggest that Reiling’s conclusion that alcohol might have been a factor in causing the collision is properly supported because alcohol is known to slow reaction time and Reiling had opined earlier in his report that Plaintiff had failed to timely react. Defendants argued that Reiling’s opinion that alcohol was a possible factor in causing the collision has a proper foundation and is reliable because Reiling was entitled to rely on Plaintiff’s statement to medical personnel about having alcohol in his system, which was recorded by a trooper at the scene.
Analysis
The Court held that Reiling’s report did not indicate that he did in fact rely on alcohol as a factor in forming his conclusions regarding the cause of the collision at issue. Although Defendants’ counsel understandably seeks to connect Reiling’s conclusions regarding “the failure of Forsyth to react” to Forsyth’s comment that “he had alcohol in his system,” the report itself does not connect those dots. Moreover, in opining that alcohol may have been a factor, Reiling does not explain how he used his expertise to form that conclusion, i.e., the Court cannot determine what, if any, principle or method he used in reaching this conclusion.
However, even if the Court found that Reiling was entitled to rely on Plaintiff’s statement about having alcohol in his system, and that he had used his expertise to reach this conclusion, applicable law would still prohibit Reiling from offering his opinion at the trial of this cause. In stating that “[a]lcohol may have been a contributing factor,” Reiling has provided the type of speculative opinion that applicable law prohibits because it fails to provide anything more than a commonsense conclusion about what is or is not possible.
Finally, in determining that Reiling’s opinion regarding alcohol as a possible cause of the collision should be excluded, the Court noted that the statement appears to be a gratuitous add-on at the end of his report which is out-of-step with the other well-formulated conclusions he renders therein. In rendering his other opinions, Reiling walks through the steps he took to formulate each opinion, provides supporting data for those opinions, and offers them with a degree of certainty that is lacking with his opinion addressing alcohol.
Held
The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to exclude the testimony of Defendant’s expert K. Scott Reiling.
Key Takeaway:
Reiling’s opinion regarding alcohol as a possible cause of the collision is precisely the type of speculative opinion that applicable law prohibits. Reiling does not explain how he used his expertise to form that conclusion; i.e., the Court cannot determine what, if any, principles or methods he relied on in reaching this conclusion.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Forsyth V. Big L Express Trucking, Llc Et Al |
| Docket Number: | 2:22cv37 |
| Court: | United States District Court, Tennessee Eastern |
| Order Date: | December 30, 2024 |
