Accident Reconstruction Expert’s Testimony on Human Factors Excluded
Posted on October 7, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler
This case arises from a fatal automobile accident that occurred on September 22, 2017. Blake Haddox was traveling southbound on a motorcycle as Defendant Nicholas Roshon Moore drove a semi-truck in a northbound lane and turned left across traffic. The two collided, and Haddox died as a result.
Plaintiffs planned to present the testimony and opinions of Daniel R. Phillips as an expert in accident reconstruction. Defendants argued that Phillips, an accident reconstructionist, is not qualified to provide the expert testimony he proffers, that his testimony will not help the jury, and that his opinions are unreliable. As a result, Defendants filed a motion to prohibit his testimony.
Accident Reconstruction Expert Witness
Daniel Ray Phillips earned a Bachelor of Science degree in mathematics with a minor in physics from the University of North Texas, and a Master of Science degree in mathematics from Texas A&M University. He is fully accredited by the Accreditation Commission of Traffic Accident Reconstruction and has worked as an accident reconstructionist for over 20 years. Phillips also has received specialized training in accident reconstruction.
Discussion by the Court
A. Phillips is qualified to testify as an accident reconstructionist, but unqualified to testify about “human factors” or make credibility determinations
Defendants argued that Phillips is unqualified to testify about “human factors,” unqualified to provide an “opinion as to whether Moore had a protected green arrow when he proceeded to make his turn,” and unqualified to make credibility determinations.
The Court found Phillips qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, training, and education to render opinions about accident reconstruction. However, the opinions proffered by Phillips extend beyond the realm of an accident reconstructionist. The Court agreed with Defendants that Phillips is unqualified to testify about “human factors.” His curriculum vitae does not reflect any specific training in this area. And during his deposition, Phillips acknowledged that his training in “human factors” stems from “some coursework at Northwestern University,” what has been “provided by Crash Safety Solutions,” and that which is “intrinsic … within reconstruction.”
B. Phillips’s proffered opinions are neither relevant nor reliable
Defendants contended that Phillips’ testimony will not aid the jury. One area of his proffered testimony concerns whether an eyewitness, Bruce Gourd, could view the traffic light at the time of the accident.
The Court is not persuaded that Phillips’ testimony about whether Gourd could view the traffic light at the time of the incident is helpful to the jury. Gourd is listed as one of Plaintiffs’ witnesses. The Court did not find it helpful for an expert to explain what Gourd observed when Gourd can tell the jury himself. Moreover, many of Phillips’ opinions are statements of fact that are adequately covered by fact witnesses who were at the scene the night of the accident.
Phillips’ proposed opinions impermissibly invaded the province of the jury. His opinions included, for example: “Moore’s decision to turn across the path of approaching traffic was causal to the crash”; “the independent witness statements are consistent with one another and indicate that Haddox had a green light upon approach”; and “Moore’s testimony concerning the light sequence is not consistent with either of the independent witnesses.”
Throughout his report, Phillips relied on unreliable data to reach his opinions. For example, his report stated, “an exact impact speed of the motorcycle cannot be determined with the available evidence” but the next sentence provides, “[a] subjective analysis of the damage using my experience does not suggest impact speeds over 30 mph.” Phillips failed to explain what his subjective analysis takes into consideration. Further, he acknowledged in his deposition that the exact speed of the motorcycle cannot be determined from the evidence.
For all the reasons set out above, the Court concluded that Phillips’ opinions will not assist the jury and are therefore not relevant.
Held
The Court granted the Defendants’ motion to strike the testimony of Plaintiffs’ expert Daniel Phillips.
Key Takeaway:
The Court concluded that Phillips’ opinions are not relevant and are unreliable because no special skill, knowledge, or expertise is needed to understand and draw conclusions from facts about common experiences.
The Court is confident that the jury will be fully equipped to form its own conclusions about the weight of Gourd’s testimony, other fact witnesses’ testimony, and the ultimate issues in this case. Further, the facts here and the applicable traffic rules are easily understood and within the common experience of jurors in Oklahoma, where private motor vehicle travel is the primary mode of transportation.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Haddox Et Al V. Central Freightlines, Inc. Et Al |
| Docket Number: | 4:18cv266 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Oklahoma Northern |
| Order Date: | September 25, 2025 |
