Mechanical Engineering Expert’s Testimony on Shooting Reconstruction Admitted

Plaintiff Edgar T. Rodriguez filed this civil rights lawsuit against Defendants, including the City of Eugene as well as individuals Timothy Hunt, Mark Hubbard, and Faith McCready. 

This case arises out of a police response to a disturbance at Plaintiff’s apartment on September 10, 2016, during which Plaintiff was shot by Defendants Hubbard and Hunt with the Eugene Police Department.

Plaintiff filed a Daubert motion to exclude the testimony of Defendants’ expert Wilson C. “Toby” Hayes.

Mechanical Engineering Expert Witness

Wilson Carlyle “Toby” Hayes has a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from Stanford University, 1964, a M.S. in Mechanical Engineering from Stanford University, 1966, and a Ph.D in Theoretical and Applied Mechanics from Northwestern University, 1970. 

From 1969 to 1970, Hayes was a Research Fellow at the Laboratory for Experimental Surgery in Davos, Switzerland, and from 1970 to 1971 he was a Special Research Fellow at the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden.

Hayes served as an Assistant Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Orthopaedic Surgery at Stanford University from 1971-1976; an Associate Professor of Orthopaedic Surgery at the University of Pennsylvania from 1976-1979; and a Professor of Orthopaedic Surgery and later of Biomechanics at Harvard University from 1979-1998.

After leaving Harvard University, Hayes was Vice Provost for Research at Oregon State University between 1998 and 2001 and Professor of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation and Vice Chair for Research at Oregon Health Sciences University from 1998-2004.

Want to know more about the challenges Wilson Hayes has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report. 

Discussion by the Court

Hayes is Qualified to Testify on Questions of Biomechanical Engineering

Hayes’ report covered a reconstruction of the shooting based on a FARO scan, photographs, post-shooting medical imaging, police reports, deposition testimony, and declarations.

Hayes’ report used biomechanical and anatomical principles and shooting reconstruction techniques, including modeling and the application of specialized software, to opine on the relative positions and physical orientation of Plaintiff and the Defendant officers during the shooting.

Moreover, the Court concluded that Hayes is qualified to testify on questions of biomechanical engineering, including shooting reconstructions; anatomy; the analysis of injuries; and the assessment of medical reports and imaging. The Court concluded that Hayes’ opinions concerning the shooting reconstruction are relevant and sufficiently reliable to meet the Daubert standard. 

Hayes is not Qualified to Testify as an Expert on Perception–Response Time

Hayes’ report also consisted of opinions based on perception response time. However, Plaintiff filed a motion to exclude testimony concerning perception response time on the grounds that Hayes is not an expert in the subject. At the hearing, Hayes testified that he took courses on ergonomics while studying for his master’s degree between 1964 and 1966 which included the study of perception response time. The Court concluded that this training and experience is not sufficient to qualify Hayes as an expert on perception response time and so Hayes may not offer testimony on that subject.

The Court added that (1) Hayes may not testify as to the intentions, thoughts, or perceptions of any party or witness in this case; (2) Hayes may not vouch for the testimony of any party or witness in his testimony; (3) Hayes may not testify on the time it took for the Defendant officers to call for an ambulance, both because that opinion falls outside of his area of expertise as a biomechanical engineer and because, by Hayes’ own admission, his opinion is not supported by any data; (4) Hayes may not testify concerning police policy, use-of-force, or deadly force as those topics fall outside of his expertise as a biomechanical engineer; and (5) Hayes may not testify as to ultimate questions of law, such as whether a party acted “reasonably.”

Held

The Court granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff’s Daubert motion to exclude the testimony of Defendants’ expert Wilson C. “Toby” Hayes.

Key Takeaway:

Hayes took courses on ergonomics while studying for his master’s degree between 1964 and 1966 which included the study of perception response time. The Court, however, concluded that this training and experience is not sufficient to qualify Hayes as an expert on perception response time.

Case Details:

Case Caption:	Rodriguez V. Hunt Et Al
Docket Number:	6:18cv1640
Court Name:	United States District Court, Oregon
Order Date:	September 16, 2025