--- title: "Traffic Engineering Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Negligent Conduct" meta: "og:description": "The traffic engineering expert was precluded from offering impermissible legal conclusions regarding FMCSA violations" "og:title": "Traffic Engineering Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Negligent Conduct" author: "Shuva Guha Thakurta" description: "The traffic engineering expert was precluded from offering impermissible legal conclusions regarding FMCSA violations" --- # Traffic Engineering Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Negligent Conduct Posted on August 5, 2026 by Shuva Guha Thakurta The instant case arises from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on Interstate 95 ("I-95") in Bensalem, Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs Seng Long Kim, Srey Pov Art, and Som Art Hy brought claims for negligence and loss of consortium stemming from injuries Plaintiffs each sustained in the crash. Defendants Johny M. Pierre and Star Logistics and Hospitality Services, LLC sought to preclude the expert testimony of [Keith A. Bergman](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Keith-Bergman/1578124), P.E. ![Traffic Engineering Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Negligent Conduct](https://media.jurimatic.com/images/blog_pic_640X480_2026_08_05T175551_219.webp) ## **Traffic Engineering Expert Witness** [Keith Alan Bergman](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Keith-Bergman/1578124), P.E. has a degree in civil engineering, and he has professional experience working as a highway, street design, and traffic engineering consultant. Bergman has been working in the field as an engineer since 1991. [Want to know more about the challenges Keith Bergman has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/order/add?eId=1578124&pId=3). ## **Discussion by the Court** ### **A. Bergman is Qualified to Offer Expert Testimony on the Topic of Operating a Motor Vehicle** Here, Defendants argued that Bergman is not a qualified expert on the trucking industry, or the FMCSA and its regulations. The Court is confident that Berman is qualified to offer expert testimony regarding the operation of a motor vehicle on a major highway. Bergman has both formal education and professional experience in the field. Bergman is not offering testimony regarding the FMCSA and its regulations. Nor is Bergman offering testimony regarding the trucking industry practices. Instead, the Report pertains to traffic engineering and driver perception and reaction, both of which are well within his domain and expertise. Therefore, the Court is satisfied that Bergman is qualified to offer expert testimony regarding roadway design, traffic engineering, sight distance, driver perception and reaction, stopping distance, roadway conditions, and the ability of the driver to perceive and respond to hazards in the roadway. ### **B. Bergman's Testimony Fits the Issues of the Case** #### **1. Bergman's Conclusions Regarding Pierre's Conduct** Upon review, the Court found that the Report contaisn several improper legal conclusions that must be excluded from trial. Throughout the Report, Bergman offers conclusions that Pierre and Start Logistics and Hospitality Services LLC violated various statues and regulations, or acted recklessly, negligent, or willfully. Upon review, the Court found that these statements constitute impermissible legal conclusions that divest the Court's authority and duty to instruct the finder of fact as to the applicable law in this case. First, Bergman's conclusions that Pierre (1) acted recklessly; (2) acted negligently; (3) willfully endangered the safety of motorists; (4) failed to be reasonably attentive; and (5) caused the accident will be excluded. This is an action seeking damages caused by Defendants' alleged negligence. Plaintiffs are trying to prove that Pierre was negligent. Here, Bergman's conclusions regarding Pierre's reckless, negligent, and/or willful conduct "contain terms and standards with technical legal meaning beyond the proper scope of expert testimony and could confuse the jury." The Court found that offering expert testimony using these terms and standards when opining on Pierre's conduct will not aid the trier of fact in this case, a jury. Instead, these kinds of conclusions will mislead and confuse the jury. Next, Bergman's various conclusions that Pierre violated Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code Title 75 also constitute improper legal conclusions and will be excluded. Bergman concluded that Pierre violated Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code Title 75 ยงยง 3327 (Duty of driver in emergency response area and in relation to disabled vehicles), 3309(1) (Driving within a single lane), 3310(a) (Following too closely), 3714(a) (Careless driving), and 3736(a) (Reckless driving). These conclusions are improper because they while these are not the kind of statutes that are sufficiently specific as to the kind of conduct they prevent for a violation itself to constitute negligence per se, they require a similar if not identical standard to the governing law of the case: common law negligence. To conclude that Pierre acted negligently, recklessly, or willfully is precisely the kind of question that must go to the jury in this case. For that reason, the Court will exercise its discretion at this preliminary posture to exclude these statements from trial. #### **2. Bergman's Conclusions Regarding the "Star Laundry Defendants'" Conduct** Bergman also offered several conclusions as to the role that the "Star Laundry Defendants" ("Star Laundry") played in the motor vehicle crash. Bergman focuses primarily on Star Laundry's compliance with applicable federal regulations. A selection of those conclusions are identified below: - "_The actions and/or inactions of Star Laundry played a role in the cause of this incident_." - "_Had Star Laundry Defendants complied with Code of Federal Regulations - Title 49 - Transportation, this incident could have been avoided_." For the same reasons that Bergman may not offer conclusions that Mr. Pierre violated the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code, Bergman may not conclude that Star Laundry violated the FMCSA's regulations, or that Star Laundry's violation of the FMCSA's regulations was a cause of the accident. These conclusions will also confuse the jury and improperly attempt to instruct the jury on the law of the case. The issue of whether Defendants caused the accident are questions that the jury must answer based on the applicable causation standards that the Court, not an expert, must instruct. Accordingly, these statements will also be excluded; Bergman may not testify regarding whether Star Laundry violated or failed to comply with the FMCSA, or whether Star Laundry was ultimately the or a cause of the motor vehicle accident. ### **C. Bergman's Testimony is Based on Reliable Methodology** Defendants argued that Bergman's conclusions in the report lack any reliable methodology. Upon review, the Court is satisfied that Bergman's expert report has "good grounds," and should not be excluded at trial. The Report utilizes reliable standards of the he explicitly references and applies American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (the "AASHTO") Policy on Geometric Design. The AASHTO Policy is a recognizable and reliable set of maintained standards. Further, this is an area of expertise specifically within Bergman's qualifications. To apply the AASHTO Policy, Bergman performed inspections of I-95, applied policy and state Motor Vehicle Code to determine sight distance upon which his conclusions are based reliable information about the crash and the crash site. Bergman calculated the sight distance to determine the required safe stopping distances and based on the sight distance the available stopping distance for Pierre exceeded what was considered a safe distance. ## **Held** The Court granted in part and denied in part****Defendants' motion to preclude the testimony of Keith A. Bergman, P.E. ## **Key Takeaway** [_Daubert_](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/daubert_standard)'_s_ reliability requirement ensures that an expert's testimony is "based on the methods and procedures of science, not on subjective belief and unsupported speculation." This does not require that the expert's testimony have the best foundation or be supported by the best methodology or unassailable research. ## **Case Details:** | Case Caption: | Seng Long Kim V. Pierre | | --- | --- | | Docket Number: | 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170184 | | Court Name: | United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania | | Order Date: | July 31, 2026 | --- ## **You Might Also Like** ![Law and Legal Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Chinese Commercial Litigation](https://media.jurimatic.com/images/blog_pic_640X480_2026_08_05T200027_672.webp) [**Law and Legal Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Chinese Commercial Litigation**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/traffic-engineering-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-negligent-conduct/law-and-legal-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-chinese-commercial-litigation)![Traffic Engineering Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Negligent Conduct](https://media.jurimatic.com/images/blog_pic_640X480_2026_08_05T175551_219.webp) [**Traffic Engineering Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Negligent Conduct**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/traffic-engineering-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-negligent-conduct/traffic-engineering-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-negligent-conduct)![Psychiatry Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Skilled Nursing and Inpatient Rehabilitation Guidelines](https://media.jurimatic.com/images/blog_pic_640X480_2026_08_04T202929_2761.webp) [**Psychiatry Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Skilled Nursing and Inpatient Rehabilitation Guidelines**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/traffic-engineering-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-negligent-conduct/psychiatry-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-skilled-nursing-and-inpatient-rehabilitation-guidelines)![Roofing Expert Allowed to Opine on Weather Damage ](https://media.jurimatic.com/images/blog_pic_640X480_2026_08_04T150950_5901.webp) [**Roofing Expert Allowed to Opine on Weather Damage **](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/traffic-engineering-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-negligent-conduct/roofing-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-weather-damage-)![Dermatology Expert Not Allowed to Opine on DMDM-induced Dermatitis](https://media.jurimatic.com/images/blog_pic_640X480_2026_08_03T200114_366.webp) [**Dermatology Expert Not Allowed to Opine on DMDM-induced Dermatitis**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/traffic-engineering-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-negligent-conduct/dermatology-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-dmdm-induced-dermatitis)