Transportation Safety Expert’s Testimony on Compliance with Federal Safety Regulations Admitted
Posted on August 22, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler
This case concerns a motor vehicle collision that occurred between Plaintiff Bryan Russell Arnett (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Larry Tyrone Fairell, II (“Fairell”) on December 14, 2022.
Fairell filed a motion to partially strike the testimony of Arnett’s retained transportation safety expert, David Hedgpeth.
Transportation Safety Expert Witness
David Hedgpeth is the principal owner of Hill Country Transportation Resources, LLC and has over 35 years of experience in the commercial transportation industry.
Hedgpeth has a comprehensive understanding of commercial transportation industry standards, best practices, and regulatory guidelines, and in particular, what would be considered usual and customary, with employees, commercial drivers, delivery services and company management.
Discussion by the Court
Arnett designated Hedgpeth, of Hill Country Transportation Resources, LLC, in his First Supplemental Expert Designations on March 24, 2025. The designation stated that Hedgpeth “will testify about transportation safety, regulatory compliance, fleet management, commercial motor vehicle accident investigation, and industry standards of care.”
On May 06, 2025, Arnett served his Eleventh Supplemental Rule 26 Disclosures, which included Hedgpeth’s supplemental report.
The parties did not dispute that Arnett’s original designation of Hedgpeth
was timely. But the Defendants took issue with the service of Hedgpeth’s supplemental report, which they asserted “addresses new topics and offers new opinions not addressed in Hedgpeth’s original report not disclosed in Plaintiff’s Designations.”
And, so, Defendants contended that Hedgpeth’s supplemental report should be stricken because it is untimely and fails to comply with Rule 26’s disclosure requirements and because the opinions contained in it are unreliable and, consequently, inadmissible under Rule 702 and Daubert.
Rule 26
Defendants argued that Hedgpeth’s supplemental report is untimely because it consisted of “new” opinions about whether speeding was a contributing factor to the incident at issue, which were not contained in his original report.
Arnett stated that the original report analyzed compliance with Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (“FMCSR”) and, specifically, section 395.8(2)(i), which requires drivers to record their duty status. And the supplemental report “builds on this” by analyzing newly produced bills of lading, which “provide additional data regarding the driving hours and mileage of Defendant Fairell [and] directly relate to the original opinion about FMCSR compliance and safety concerns.”
Arnett contended that the supplemental report bolsters Hedgpeth’s original conclusions about FMCSR compliance and safety concerns but did not exceed the scope of his original report.
Based on its review of Hedgpeth’s original and supplemental reports, the Court agreed with Arnett.
Hedgpeth’s supplemental report serves to elaborate – more generally – on his original opinions about compliance with federal safety regulations. And, so, it does not depart from his original report in material respects.
As to timeliness, the documents (bills of lading) that formed the basis of Hedgpeth’s supplemental report were purportedly produced on March 12, 2025, which was before Arnett’s expert designation deadline.
Arnett asserted that Hedgpeth reviewed the materials and produced the supplement “as quickly as practicable,” which allowed Arnett to serve the supplemental report on Defendants on May 6, 2025 – ten days after the discovery deadline.
Rule 702 and Daubert
Defendants also contended that Hedgpeth’s opinions in his supplemental report are unreliable under Rule 702 and Daubert because they are facially speculative. Specifically, Defendants pointed to Hedgpeth’s statements that he “is unable to come to an accurate conclusion as to speed and hours of service” and that the “information and data is inconclusive.”
But Arnett’s response persuasively addressed Hedgpeth’s qualifications, methodologies, materials reviewed, and summary of his opinions as it relates to his supplemental report. And, so, the Court found that Hedgpeth’s supplemental report satisfied Rule 702 and Daubert and that it should not be excluded on that basis.
Held
The Court denied the Defendants’ motion to partially strike the testimony of transportation safety expert, David Hedgpeth.
Key Takeaway:
Insofar as Arnett’s supplemental disclosure fell short of Rule 26’s requirements, the Court found that such non-compliance – on considering the arguments that Arnett persuasively lays out in his response – was harmless.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Arnett V. C&S Delivery Services LLC Et Al |
| Docket Number: | 3:24cv1643 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Texas Northern |
| Order Date: | August 20, 2025 |
