--- title: "Transportation Safety Expert Allowed to Opine on Alleged Violations" meta: "og:description": "The transportation safety expert was allowed to testify because of his extensive experience in logistics, supply chain management and motor carrier safety" "og:title": "Transportation Safety Expert Allowed to Opine on Alleged Violations " author: "Shuva Guha Thakurta" description: "The transportation safety expert was allowed to testify because of his extensive experience in logistics, supply chain management and motor carrier safety" --- # Transportation Safety Expert Allowed to Opine on Alleged Violations Posted on August 10, 2026 by Shuva Guha Thakurta This diversity action arises from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on June 4, 2023, and resulted in the death of Noah M. Leyman—the Plaintiff's husband—and in injuries to Plaintiff Jurnee Leyman. Defendant Firdavs Kubaev, acting as a driver for and in the course and scope of his employment with Defendant Timur Trucking, LLC, was hauling a trailer owned by Amazon at the time of the accident. Defendants Amazon Logistics, LLC; Amazon.com, Inc.; and Amazon.com Services, LLC filed motions to exclude the testimony of Plaintiffs' experts [Frank Alexander Scott III](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Frank-Scott,%20III,/1578285) and [Joseph Stidham](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Joseph-Stidham%20A.K.A.%20Joey%20Stidham/1532781). ![Transportation Safety Expert Allowed to Opine on Alleged Violations ](https://media.jurimatic.com/images/blog_pic_640X480_2026_08_10T164632_5791.webp) ## Transportation Safety Expert Witness [Frank Alexander Scott, III](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Frank-Scott,%20III,/1578285) is an associate professor of supply chain management, Cheryl Massingale Business Faculty Scholar and the Gerald T. Niedert Professor in the Haslam College of Business at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Scott’s research focuses on supply chain policy, transportation sustainability and safety, and market dynamics and governance structures in the transportation industry. His research has appeared in the Journal of Operations Management, Production and Operations Management, the Journal of Business Logistics, and Transportation Science, among others, and has been covered by numerous industry publications. His work has been presented as evidence in front of a U.S. Congressional subcommittee on transportation safety. Scott regularly presents at national conferences, serves as a referee for various leading academic journals, and is an experienced expert witness. Prior to joining academia, Scott worked for nine years in industry, including with a large transportation company, a large third-party logistics provider and an international consulting firm. He has consulted in many industries and countries, including in Brazil, Canada, France, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Russia, Ukraine, and Saudi Arabia. He has led projects on supply chain strategy (including a multibillion-dollar merger), network design, inventory planning and optimization and transportation planning. [Want to know more about the challenges Frank Alexander Scott III has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/order/add?eId=1578285&pId=3). ## **Accident Reconstruction** Expert Witness [Joseph E. Stidham](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Joseph-Stidham%20A.K.A.%20Joey%20Stidham/1532781) is a traffic collision reconstructionist who since 1998 has operated the independent firm, Stidham Reconstruction and Investigation (or "SRI"). Prior to 1998, he served for eight years in the Kentucky State Police, where he performed criminal and accident investigations, and for the last two of those eight years he was responsible for collision reconstruction. [Gain a comprehensive understanding of Joseph Stidham’s qualifications and casework history with his Expert Witness Profile report](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/order/add?eId=1532781&pId=3). ## **Discussion by the Court** ### Frank Alexander Scott Amazon sought to exclude Scott's testimony on the grounds that Scott's opinions: (1) improperly conflate the duties of Amazon and Defendant Timur Trucking, LLC ("Timur Trucking"); (2) are merely _ipse dixit_ assertions regarding Amazon's alleged "control" over Timur Trucking; and (3) are not supported by reliable principles and methods. #### A. Duties of the Defendants Amazon first argued that Scott's opinions "improperly conflate Amazon's duties with Timur Trucking and, thus, overstate the duties required by the applicable FMCSR's." Amazon complained that Scott fails to provide "objective, independent validation" of his methodology in opining that Amazon should have prohibited Timur Trucking from hauling Amazon loads. Amazon alleged that Scott failed to identify the standard of care violated by Amazon and, instead, "summarily concludes that the authorities applicable to Timur Trucking relate to his conclusion regarding Amazon." The Court disagreed. Scott's report sets out alleged violations by Timur Trucking as a basis for his opinion that Amazon should not have hired Timur Trucking; Scott did not "supplant those violations onto Amazon." #### B. _Ipse Dixit Argument_ Amazon next argued that Scott's report recounts several opinions that are merely ipse dixit statements lacking support. However, the Court has reviewed Scott's expert report and does not agree that Scott's opinion is simply _ipse dixit_. His report provides ample footnotes citing the evidence and documentation upon which the information and opinions in his report are based. Scott's extensive experience in interstate transportation, logistics, supply chain management, and motor carrier safety, operations, selection and retention allows him to draw conclusions from the factual data in this case. This does not make the opinions mere_ ipse dixit_. #### C. Reliability Argument Amazon also argued that Scott's report is unreliable because it does not offer "a standard of care as to Amazon" and attempts "to interpret the FMCSRs to supplant a duty onto Amazon." As noted above, the Court disagreed with Amazon's assertion as to the scope of Scott's report, and found that Scott has used reliable methodology. Scott established in his report that he has extensive experience in interstate transportation and supply chain management. Scott applied these years of experience when examining Timur Trucking's and Amazon's conduct, as shown in the documentation reviewed by him, in order to render his opinions. Scott's report is not scientific or technical in nature, and therefore his methodology "need not be the rigorous scientific or technical review as might be necessary for purely scientific or technical testimony." Rather, it is enough that Scott's report ties his observations about the relevant documents to conclusions through "the use of ... general truths derived from specialized experience." Amazon is welcome to challenge Scott's conclusions during cross-examination. The Court determined that Scott has a sufficient basis for the opinions and Amazon's argument goes to the weight of his opinions, not their admissibility. Accordingly, the Court found that Scott's opinion is reliable. ### Joseph Stidham Stidham analyzes not only the physical details of the collision, but also the background leading up to it and the relationship between the Amazon Defendants and the Timur Defendants and motor carriers in general. The Amazon Defendants base their motion on the grounds that: (1) Stidham's expert opinions are legally conclusory restatements of Plaintiffs' claims; (2) his opinions amount to "_ipse dixit_," meaning that they lack a proper foundation; and (3) he is not qualified to opine on the Amazon Defendants' policies or the Amazon Relay app. #### A. Legal Conclusions The instant motion argued that many of Stidham's opinions are inadmissible summary legal conclusions, such as that the Amazon Defendants "failed to act to prevent the collision," that "the collision and the death to [Noah] Leyman and injury to [Plaintiff] would not have occurred" if the applicable "laws and standards had been observed" by the Amazon Defendants, and that the Amazon Defendants acted with "willful, reckless, and conscious disregard for the safety of other motorists on the roadway." Plaintiffs rightly concede that Stidham's conclusion as to "willful, reckless, and conscious disregard" must be limited at trial. That is an impermissible legal conclusion that will not "assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue." As for the other testimony challenged by the Amazon Defendants, Plaintiffs responded that Stidham grounds his "preventable accident" determination in the definition of that term established by Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Regulations and by the standardized Commercial Vehicle Accident Manual published by the Department of Transportation's Federal Highway Administration. The Court agreed with Plaintiffs; Stidham's testimony that the accident was preventable as defined by industry standards, and that compliance with industry standards by the Defendants would have in fact prevented it, constitutes admissible expert opinions, even if it embraces ultimate issues that the jury must determine. Such testimony is likely to be helpful to the jury when interpreting the facts, and it is for Defendants to convince the jury that Stidham is incorrect. The Amazon Defendants, in their argument to the contrary, make much of the fact that Plaintiffs' pleadings reflect some of the same conclusions set forth in Stidham's report. This argument is unavailing. The idea that the Defendants were required by industry standards to take certain actions, but did not do so, does not become an impermissible legal conclusion simply because it appears in a pleading. Stidham may not testify that Defendants acted with "willful, reckless, and conscious disregard," but he may testify regarding Defendants' access to "real-time load tracking, including geolocation, geo fencing, vehicle telemetry, and real-time location systems" and what the applicable industry standards required them to do with that access. Such testimony does not usurp either the Court's role of providing legal instruction, nor the jury's role of ascertaining and attributing legal significance to the facts. #### B. _Ipse Dixit_ Next, the instant motion argued that "Stidham's opinions regarding [Defendants'] ability to 'prevent' the accident or whether the accident 'would not have occurred' do not contain any support beyond Stidham simply saying it is so." The Court had no difficulty, however, identifying the bridge that connects Stidham's data to his conclusions. As Plaintiffs accurately summarize, Stidham began with data from various sources, including the electronic logs produced by both vehicles involved in the collision, cellular location data, and internal documents produced by the Amazon Defendants in discovery. He draws conclusions from that data implicating violations of applicable standards, like that Defendant Kubaev, who was driving the semi-truck, violated driving time limitations. Finally, he reviews evidence that the corporate Defendants had access to the same data, such as discovery documents confirming that the Amazon Defendants tracked the locations of drivers who were logged into the Amazon Relay App. From this methodology, Stidham concluded that Defendants had the capacity to determine that standards were being violated, which is the substance of the objected-to paragraphs. He further opined that, had Defendants acted on this knowledge, they could have prevented the hazardous conditions that resulted from the violations, such as by preventing an over-exhausted driver from hauling a load overnight. The Amazon Defendants do not need to agree with these conclusions, and the Court is prohibited from evaluating their correctness, but they are not ipse dixit. They are admissible. #### C. Qualifications The Amazon Defendants argued that Stidham is unqualified to offer opinions on their policies or on the Amazon Relay App, because he has neither experience nor training in "logistics, shipping, brokering, or supply chain management." Though Plaintiffs provided "undoubtedly-robust support for his qualifications as an expert in accident reconstruction," Amazon insisted that his expertise is not applicable to the shipping, brokering, and motor carrier issues relevant to this case. This argument mischaracterizes Stidham's report. It does, as the Amazon Defendants point out, "contain twenty-nine pages outlining Amazon employee testimony regarding its policies" and "another six pages dedicated to the Amazon Relay App." These pages do not contain, however, expert witness testimony on the Amazon Defendants' internal policies or the Amazon Relay App. Instead, these pages outline the sources Stidham relies on to determine what data the Amazon Defendants could access. Though the cited discovery documents discussing the Amazon Relay App are placed within the "Opinions and Conclusions" section of the report, they are clearly present only to support his associated conclusion, which is that "Amazon sets the times for pickup and delivery of loads, and the Relay App provides the navigation of the load. The Relay App also tracks the driver that is logged into the Relay App." Similarly, Stidham elsewhere intersperses his conclusions with a partial document from the Department of Energy's Vehicle Technologies Office that purports to show the average operating speed of trucks on major routes. Stidham is neither an expert on Vehicle Technologies Office operations nor on the statistical analysis of aggregate vehicular speed data, but he includes the in-line reference to support his conclusion that Defendant Kubaev's speed was above average. ## **Held** - The Court denied Amazon's motion to exclude the testimony of Plaintiffs' expert Frank Alexander Scott III. - The Court granted in part and denied in part Amazon's motion to exclude the testimony of Plaintiffs' expert Joseph Stidham. ## **Key Takeaway** Qualified experts are permitted to offer opinion testimony as to industry standards or norms and whether they were followed in a particular case. That testimony cannot be limited simply because it embraces an ultimate issue. Please refer to the blog previously published about this case: [Transportation Expert Allowed to Opine on Contracts and Policies](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/transportation-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-contracts-and-policies) ## **Case Details:** | Case Caption: | Leyman v. Amazon Logistics, Inc. | | --- | --- | | Docket Number: | 2:24cv129 | | Court Name: | United States District Court, Texas Northern | | Order Date: | August 07, 2026 | --- ## **You Might Also Like** ![Transportation Safety Expert Allowed to Opine on Alleged Violations ](https://media.jurimatic.com/images/blog_pic_640X480_2026_08_10T164632_5791.webp) [**Transportation Safety Expert Allowed to Opine on Alleged Violations **](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/transportation-safety-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-alleged-violations-/transportation-safety-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-alleged-violations-)![Accounting Expert Allowed to Opine on Monetary Damages](https://media.jurimatic.com/images/blog_pic_640X480_2026_08_07T173048_9091.webp) [**Accounting Expert Allowed to Opine on Monetary Damages**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/transportation-safety-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-alleged-violations-/accounting-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-monetary-damages)![Computer Science Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Infringement](https://media.jurimatic.com/images/blog_pic_640X480_2026_08_07T144644_2281.webp) [**Computer Science Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Infringement**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/transportation-safety-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-alleged-violations-/computer-science-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-infringement)![Transportation Expert Allowed to Opine on Contracts and Policies](https://media.jurimatic.com/images/blog_pic_640X480_2026_08_06T195710_261.webp) [**Transportation Expert Allowed to Opine on Contracts and Policies**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/transportation-safety-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-alleged-violations-/transportation-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-contracts-and-policies)![Emergency Medicine Expert Allowed to Opine on Foot Injuries](https://media.jurimatic.com/images/blog_pic_640X480_2026_08_06T183545_570.webp) [**Emergency Medicine Expert Allowed to Opine on Foot Injuries**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/transportation-safety-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-alleged-violations-/emergency-medicine-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-foot-injuries)