--- title: "Civil Engineering Expert Was Not Allowed to Opine on the Cause of Fall" meta: "og:description": "The civil engineering expert was barred from opining on the cause of the fall because it exceeded the bounds of his expertise" "og:title": "Civil Engineering Expert Was Not Allowed to Opine on the Cause of Fall" author: "Expert Witness Profiler" description: "The civil engineering expert was barred from opining on the cause of the fall because it exceeded the bounds of his expertise" --- # Civil Engineering Expert Was Not Allowed to Opine on the Cause of Fall Posted on April 28, 2026 by Expert Witness Profiler On August 20, 2019, Plaintiff Martin J. Benzing visited a construction site on the Bruckner Expressway. During the visit, he climbed down a ladder and suffered a head injury. This case concerns the cause of Benzing’s injury and which entities bear responsibility for any damages Benzing suffered. Benzing and his wife, Annastacia Benzing, alleged that Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs Tully-Posillico JV, Tully Construction Co., Inc., and Posillico Civil, Inc. (together the “JV Defendants”) violated three provisions of the New York Labor Law (“NYLL”) as the contractors, the owners, or their agents, of the construction site where the incident took place. Plaintiffs and the JV Defendants filed motions to preclude each other’s expert witnesses, [Jason Randle](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Jason-Randle/1534833), [William J. Meyer](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/William-Meyer/1574446) and [Robert S. Cargill II](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Robert-Cargill/1527812) under the _[Daubert](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/daubert_standard)_ standard. ## **Civil Engineering Expert Witness** [Jason Randle](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Jason-Randle/1534833) is a civil engineer who specializes in technical investigations and analysis for commercial claims and litigation involving construction site safety practice, including how industry standards apply to a particular incident. He also has professional experience in construction site safety, construction industry regulations, and ladder accidents. [Discover more cases with Jason Randle as an expert witness by ordering his comprehensive Expert Witness Profile report](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/order/add?eId=1534833&pId=3). ## **Mechanical Engineering Expert Witness** [William J. Meyer](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/William-Meyer/1574446) holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering from Rutgers University, the College of Engineering, New Brunswick, NJ and a Master of Science in Engineering Science from New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, New Jersey. He is a licensed Professional Engineer in New Jersey and New York. Meyer is a member of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), New Jersey Association of Accident Reconstructionist (NJAAR) and National Association of Fire Investigators (NAFI). [Get the full story on challenges to William Meyer’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/order/add?eId=1574446&pId=3). ## **Biomechanical Engineering Expert Witness** [Robert S. Cargill II](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Robert-Cargill/1527812) is a bioengineer who specializes in biomechanical engineering. His formal education includes a Bachelor of Science in biomedical engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (1989) with minor in biology, and a Master of Science (1991) and Ph.D. (1994) in bioengineering from the University of Pennsylvania. [Want to know more about the challenges Robert Cargill has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/order/add?eId=1527812&pId=3). ## **Discussion by the Court** ### **A. Jason Randle** The JV Defendants sought to preclude Randle’s testimony on three grounds: (1) he is unqualified, (2) his conclusions relied upon evidence that is inadmissible or lacks probative value, and (3) he impermissibly offered legal conclusions. First, while Randle is qualified to offer opinions on safety issues concerning the ladder and construction site, his opinions on the cause of Benzing’s fall exceed the bounds of his expertise. Courts have found biomechanical engineers “qualified to offer testimony regarding the forces generated by certain accidents and the likely effects of such forces on the human body.” However, Randle does not purport to have training or expertise in the field of biomechanics and Plaintiffs described his testimony concerning causation as “only incidental to his report.” Second, portions of Randle’s testimony impermissibly offered legal conclusions.  For example, Randle provided opinions on Tully’s duties. These opinions offer legal conclusions because “the existence and scope of an alleged tortfeasor’s duty is, in the first instance, a legal question for determination by the court.” The JV Defendants’ other contentions concerning Randle’s testimony are either unavailing or go to the weight rather than admissibility of his testimony. First, Randle’s reliance on evidence that the JV Defendants allege is inadmissible did not preclude his opinion. An expert may rely on inadmissible facts or data in reaching his opinion but may disclose them to the jury only if their probative value in helping the jury evaluate the opinion substantially outweighs their prejudicial effect. His opinions, as set forth in the report, address central issues in this case, based on the evidence in the record and his expertise as a civil engineer. The proposed testimony is sufficiently reliable and relevant. ### **B. William J. Meyer** Meyer provided testimony concerning the safety of the ladder and the causes of Benzing’s fall. Plaintiffs sought to preclude his testimony on largely the same grounds as the JV Defendants sought to preclude Randle’s testimony. First, like Randle, Meyer did not purport to be a biomechanical engineer or medical expert and is thus not qualified to offer testimony concerning the causes of Benzing’s fall or injury. Accordingly, the sections of his report and proposed testimony addressing the cause of Benzing’s fall and injury are impermissible. Second, Meyer also offered impermissible legal conclusions that must be excluded. Plaintiffs’ remaining contentions concerning Meyer’s testimony go to the weight not admissibility of his testimony and can be addressed “through vigorous cross-examination and presentation of contrary evidence.” ### **C. Robert S. Cargill II** The JV Defendants proffered Cargill’s testimony as a biomechanical perspective on the causes of Benzing’s accident. Plaintiffs sought to preclude his opinions on the grounds that they are “not grounded on sufficient facts or data, are speculative, and/or are not the product of reliable principles and methods.” The Court disagreed. As laid out in the report, Cargill reviewed evidence in the record and set forth his perspective on the incident based on his expertise as a biomechanical engineer. These opinions are within the scope of his expertise and are permissible. ## **Held** - The Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs’ motion to preclude the testimony of William J. Meyer. - The Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion to preclude the testimony of Robert S. Cargill II. - The Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion to preclude the testimony of Jason Randle. ## **Key Takeaway** In the context of litigation, biomechanical engineers typically are found to be qualified to render an opinion as to the forces generated in a particular accident and the general types of injuries those forces may generate. ## **Case Details:** --- ## **You Might Also Like** ![Law Enforcement Expert Allowed to Opine on Penological Practices](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480.jpg) [**Law Enforcement Expert Allowed to Opine on Penological Practices**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/civil-engineering-expert-was-not-allowed-to-opine-on-the-cause-of-fall/law-enforcement-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-penological-practices)![Civil Engineering Expert Was Not Allowed to Opine on the Cause of Fall](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-28T153745.838.jpg) [**Civil Engineering Expert Was Not Allowed to Opine on the Cause of Fall**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/civil-engineering-expert-was-not-allowed-to-opine-on-the-cause-of-fall/civil-engineering-expert-was-not-allowed-to-opine-on-the-cause-of-fall)![Law Enforcement Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Excessive Force](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-27T211934.000.jpg) [**Law Enforcement Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Excessive Force**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/civil-engineering-expert-was-not-allowed-to-opine-on-the-cause-of-fall/law-enforcement-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-excessive-force)![Economics Expert Allowed to Opine on Historic Losses](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-27T195437.372.jpg) [**Economics Expert Allowed to Opine on Historic Losses**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/civil-engineering-expert-was-not-allowed-to-opine-on-the-cause-of-fall/economics-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-historic-losses)![Environmental Expert Was Allowed to Opine on the Impact of PCBs](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-27T143043.781.jpg) [**Environmental Expert Was Allowed to Opine on the Impact of PCBs**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/civil-engineering-expert-was-not-allowed-to-opine-on-the-cause-of-fall/environmental-expert-was-allowed-to-opine-on-the-impact-of-pcbs)