Accident Reconstruction Expert’s Meteorological Opinions Excluded
Posted on December 15, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler
This case arises from an accident involving a Robinson R44 II helicopter, registration N442VB (“Helicopter”), that occurred on the evening of December 30, 2021, in Levy County, Florida. The Helicopter was being flown at night by the owner-pilot, Ronald Hicks (“Pilot Hicks”), from a local friend’s residence to his private property. At the time of the accident, Pilot Hicks had less than ten hours of night flight experience in helicopters and was not certified under Instrument Flight Rules (“IFR”). Mr. Hicks, Shelly Kate Hicks, and their two children sustained fatal injuries.
Plaintiffs filed a Daubert motion to exclude and/or limit the testimony of Defendant’s accident reconstruction expert Douglas Stimpson.
Accident Reconstruction Expert Witness
Douglas Earl Stimpson has been continually employed in the aviation industry for over 54 years and has participated in over 3,500 aviation accident reconstructions.
He has been a Commercial Pilot and Flight Instructor for over five decades and currently holds FAA certifications as a Commercial Pilot Rotorcraft Helicopter, Certified Flight Instructor Helicopter, Certified Flight Instructor Instruments, and Advanced Ground Instructor.
Discussion by the Court
First, Plaintiffs argued that Stimpson opined regarding “meteorology, metallurgy, and human factors issues” despite being unqualified to do so.
This Court has reviewed Stimpson’s expert report and found that he is qualified as an accident reconstruction expert and may opine from that perspective. He may also rely upon the opinions of Defendant’s other experts when forming his own accident reconstruction opinions, provided he explains he is doing so. However, Stimpson is not qualified as a piloting or meteorological expert. Therefore, he may not offer new piloting or meteorological opinions or offer Defendant’s other experts’ opinions as his own. If Stimpson’s testimony begins to venture beyond these boundaries, this Court is prepared to rein it in immediately.
Second, the Plaintiffs argued that Stimpson’s methodology was unreliable. Plaintiffs take issue with Stimpson’s reliance on flight path ASD-B data for his analysis and the fact that his opinion purportedly conflicts with at least one eyewitness’ testimony regarding the crash. Therefore, while Plaintiffs are free to cross-examine Stimpson regarding perceived deficiencies in his data or conclusions, they have not demonstrated exclusion is warranted.
Third, Plaintiffs argued that Stimpson’s opinions are cumulative because they overlap with Defendant’s other experts. As explained above, the Court found that Stimpson is a qualified accident reconstruction expert and may opine from that unique perspective. To the extent Stimpson is offering the accident reconstruction opinions in his report, his opinions are not cumulative.
Finally, Plaintiffs requested that Stimpson be bound to the opinions contained within his expert report. This Court absolutely agreed that no expert may offer opinions not within their expert report.
Held
The Court granted in part Plaintiffs’ Daubert motion to exclude and/or limit the testimony of Douglas Stimpson.
Key Takeaway
Whether an expert selected the best data set to use is a question for the jury, not the judge. Vigorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof are the traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but admissible evidence.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Law V. Avco Corporation |
| Docket Number: | 1:24cv3 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Gainesville Division |
| Order Date: | November 6, 2025 |
