This matter stems from a multi-vehicle accident occurring on June 3, 2022. The accident was instigated when a tractor-trailer driven by Defendant Harpreet Singh rear-ended the Rekshynskyj Plaintiffs' vehicle, causing a collision with the Durazo and Jones Plaintiffs. Defendant, Alpha Lion, and Defendant Iron Line Logistics, LLC were involved, in varying ways, with the shipment of Subject Load that Singh was transporting that day. Due to the accident, three separate cases were filed by the Rekshynskyj Plaintiffs, Durazo Plaintiffs, and Jones Plaintiffs, respectively, and these cases were later consolidated into the present matter.

In the course of their extensive discovery efforts, Plaintiffs and Defendants retained various experts. Their experts were appropriately disclosed and made available for depositions. At this time, Defendant sought to exclude Plaintiffs' expert, Adam Grill, in the trucking industry as well as the Rekshynskyj Plaintiffs' contractor expert, Anthony L. Santa Maria.

Trucking Expert Witness

Adam Grill has many years of combined experience as a truck driver, forklift operator, heavy equipment operator, industrial machinery operator, truck-driving instructor, dock supervisor, truck-driving consultant, yard hostler, and accident investigator.

Grill has assisted in over a dozen special studies and trucking projects covering safety procedures as well as time and motion studies including visibility from CMV drivers’ point-of-view, starting/stopping, turning, and various other aspects of safe and efficient trucking operation.

Get the full story on challenges to Adam Grill’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study.

Construction Expert Witness

Anthony L. Santa Maria is a licensed residential and commercial contractor with over 30 years of experience working in the construction industry.

Want to know more about the challenges Anthony Santa Maria has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report.

Discussion by the Court

A. Plaintiff's Expert Grill

Plaintiffs retained Grill as a trucking expert, and Grill compiled a report that opined on five overarching topics: "general trucking industry customs, practices, and standards;" "definitions, roles, and responsibilities, of various parties as it relates to the commercial trucking industry;" "the CMV operating performance of Defendant Harpreet Singh as it relates to this case;" "the motor carrier management responsibilities of J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., Iron Line Logistics, LLC, and Alpha Lion Trucking, LLC as it relates to this case;" and "determinations of accident preventability from an industry standpoint."

Defendant stated that Grill's testimony should be excluded because they included improper legal conclusions, Defendant was not a "motor carrier," are based on insufficient facts and data, and are not the product of reliable methodology.

1. Relevance

The Court raised this first issue on its own volition due to the recent Order on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendant's Daubert motions were filed before a ruling on its summary judgment motion, and at that time, relevance was not an issue. However, the outcome on summary judgment obviates some opinions in Grill's report.

Federal Rules of Evidence 402 provides that "irrelevant evidence is not admissible." And expert testimony which does not relate to any issue in the case is not relevant and, ergo, non-helpful. It so follows that if expert testimony is irrelevant, it is inadmissible under Rule 402. Here, the Court granted summary judgment in Defendant's favor on Plaintiffs' negligent selection and negligent hiring, training, supervision, and retention claim as well as Plaintiff's negligent maintenance theory. Therefore, to the extent Grill's opinions concern Defendant's responsibilities for hiring, training, supervision, retention, or maintenance or their negligence as to any of these topics, these opinions are now superfluous and will be excluded under Rule 402.

2. Legal Conclusions

Defendant sets forth a list of sixteen opinions in Grill's report or testimony that it argues constitute impermissible expert opinions. The proclaimed "legal conclusions" roughly regard either the applicability of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations ("FMCSR"); whether industry standards, regulations, or statutes were violated; and the Defendants' control over and/or responsibility for Singh.

a. Opinions on Singh's Employee Status and Responsibility for/Control over other Defendants

First, the Court agreed that Grill's opinion that, based on the facts presented, Defendant and/or Alpha Lion exercised control over Singh is an inadmissible legal conclusion.

Under Arizona law, "for an employer to be held vicariously liable for an employee's negligent acts, the employee must be (1) subject to the employer's control or right of control, and (2) acting in furtherance of the employer's business."

And as just stated above, an expert offers a legal conclusion where they opine on an ultimate legal issue, such as a necessary element of a claim. Because control over an employee is necessary to find vicarious liability, any opinion by Grill that Defendant exercised control over or was responsible for Singh will be excluded. So too will any opinion that Alpha Lion acted as an "extension" of Defendant. Whether Defendant exerted control over any other Defendant will be for a jury to determine.

The Court also excluded the opinion that Singh was Defendant's "employee" by way of any "independent contractor agreements" as it offers Grill's contractual interpretation. In general, Grill will not be allowed to testify about matters of contract interpretation.

b. Opinions on Applicability and Violations of the FMCSR

Further, Grill "may not conclude as a matter of law that a particular regulation is applicable to" any Defendant. Likewise, whether any FMCSR provision or other regulatory or statutory authority was violated is a legal conclusion that will be excluded. It is the Court's duty, not the expert's, to determine the applicability and meaning of regulations and statutes.

Even still, Plaintiffs may present the relevant FMCSRs through Grill as this will assist the jury in understanding the standard of care in the trucking industry, an area with which they may not be familiar.

c. Opinions on Other Industry Standards and Violations Thereof

Next, Grill may opine on other industry standards outside of those established by the FMCSR. However, the Court will exclude any opinion that such standards were in fact violated or not met by Singh or other Defendants. Plaintiffs have brought negligence-based claims against the Defendants, and therefore whether a standard of care was breached is an ultimate issue of law.

d. Opinions that Defendant was a Motor Carrier

Finally, Defendant challenged Grill's opinions that Defendant was acting as a motor carrier. The parties have thoroughly disagreed on this issue throughout these proceedings. Plaintiffs asserted that Defendant was a motor carrier for the Subject Load, while Defendant maintains that it was a broker. Grill now offers the following opinions: more than one motor carrier can operate a CMV if independent contractors are used; Defendant, Alpha Lion, and Iron Line were all motor carriers; Defendant was exercising motor carrier duties and holding itself out as a motor carrier; and the Bill of Lading bound Defendant to the transportation of the subject load. Defendant argued that these opinions are inadmissible legal conclusions.

Initially, although Defendant clearly disagreed with the conclusion that it was a motor carrier, it did not provide discussion as to how this issue is an ultimate issue of law. However, when an expert's interpretation of motor carrier status is predicated on the interpretation of statutes without further factual investigation, the Court must exclude that testimony. At the same time, the Court perceives no issue with Grill providing his opinion that certain evidence, such as the Bill of Lading, is indicative of Defendant's status as a motor carrier. Yet, Grill will not be allowed to opine on the legal import of the Bill of Lading.

Further, the Court cannot say, presently, that pointing to certain facts to conclude that Defendant was performing motor carrier acts or holding itself out as a motor carrier constitutes an impermissible legal conclusion. Upon review, Grill's opinion "is sufficiently predicated on evidence of actual usage of the terms in the industry to distinguish it from a mere application of the FMCSA to the facts." Moreover, the Court took Plaintiffs' point that Defendant is offering its own industry expert, who will presumably opine that Defendant was a broker. Under Defendant's reasoning, this too would be an inadmissible legal conclusion. Therefore, the Court will not exclude opinions that Defendant was a motor carrier. The parties can raise the appropriate objections at trial should Grill's or any other expert's opinion venture into the realm of a legal conclusion.

Lastly, the Court will exclude Grill's opinion that there can be more than one motor carrier to a CMV to the extent that it relies on his interpretation of independent contractor relationships. However, Grill may testify based on his experience in the trucking industry.

3. Remaining Arguments

Defendant also argued that Grill's opinions about J.B. Hunt are irrelevant and inadmissible because they are "based on his incorrect legal conclusions that J.B. Hunt was a 'motor carrier' and that J.B. Hunt employed Singh."

Furthermore, Defendant claims that Grill's opinions are not supported by sufficient facts or data nor are they the product of reliable methodology. Upon review of these arguments, they primarily disagree with the conclusions that Grill reached or the assumptions from which they were drawn; however, Defendant's dissension is not a basis for excluding expert testimony.

Defendant's methodology arguments are, likewise, unpersuasive because Grill's opinions are based on his experience in the trucking industry. Where an expert offers non-scientific testimony, 'reliability depends heavily on the knowledge and experience of the expert, rather than the methodology or theory behind' the testimony. And Defendant did not call into question Grill's experience or knowledge.

On a final note, Defendant offered another brief argument that Grill fails to distinguish between the different corporate entities. However, these arguments are sufficiently addressed by the Court's rulings above. To again be clear, nothing in the foregoing rulings prevents Grill from offering his opinions on industry customs, practices, and norms. Nevertheless, Grill's opinions and testimony will be limited as stated in the foregoing sections.

B. Plaintiff's Expert Santa Maria

Santa Maria was retained by the Rekshynskyj Plaintiffs to opine on the necessary changes to their home due to Rekshynskyj's injury and the anticipated costs of those projects. Defendant argued that Santa Maria's report contains improper legal conclusions, offers unqualified opinions, is not based on sufficient facts or data, and is not the result of reliable methodology.

1. Legal Conclusions

Defendant first argued that "Santa Maria's opinions about whether the ADA's requirements applied to [Mrs. Rekshynskyj's] home, and what the ADA required, are conclusory legal conclusions that run contrary to the ADA itself, and are not admissible expert opinions."

To be sure, Santa Maria's report stated that the Rekshynskyj Plaintiffs' home "does not in any way, form, or fashion meet or have any type of ADA compliance features." He further asserted that first-floor guest bathroom and upstairs doors, restroom, and closet doors will "need to be brought to ADA compliance." Santa Maria also called for the installation of ADA plumbing fixtures, doorknob, entry ramp, sidewalks, and gates. However, this case does not bring any ADA claim nor generally concern the ADA. Therefore, it cannot be said that Santa Maria is rendering an "opinion on an ultimate issue of law" in this case.

At no time in this case will the jury be asked to determine whether any structure was ADA compliant or whether an individual violated the ADA. Instead, this is a personal injury car crash case, and Santa Maria's report offers no opinion about the negligence or vicarious liability of any Defendant. Thus, Santa Maria is not opining on an ultimate issue of law.

Moreover, Santa Maria's use of "ADA" as a descriptor, such as "ADA gates," "ADA [door]knob," and "ADA plumbing fixtures," does not offer a legal conclusion, rather seems to refer to a particular version of these items. His opinion that the upper floor and guest bathroom need to be "brought to ADA compliance" appears to be an opinion about certain work that the house requires, instead of a conclusion about ADA compliance.

That said, while the Court does not agree that Santa Maria's opinions about bringing features to "ADA compliance" are legal conclusions on an ultimate issue of law, the references to ADA compliance are misleading as to the scope of Santa Maria's expertise and the applicability of the ADA. As Defendant accurately notes, the ADA does not apply to private residences. Consequently, on these grounds, the Court will exclude both of Santa Maria's opinions that various features of the house "need to be brought to ADA compliance."

2. Qualifications

Next, Defendant argued that Santa Maria "is not an expert in ADA compliance, or in determining what accommodations are required for a particular disability."

Based on the Court's prior analysis and given the exclusion provided above, it is not necessary to consider Santa Maria's qualifications to opine on ADA compliance. Santa Maria, similarly, has not postured himself as an expert "in determining what accommodations are required for a particular disability." In actuality, Santa Maria has provided his opinion on renovations to Plaintiffs' house that would allow Rekshynskyj to fully utilize it. Santa Maria's decades of experience as a contractor coupled with his specialized experience as an approved contractor with the "Veterans affair adaptive housing program" qualifies him to give his opinion as to the pertinent repairs to make the Rekshynskyj Plaintiffs' home accessible and the costs of those adaptations.

3. Sufficient Facts and Reliable Methodology

Lastly, Defendant contended that Santa Maria's opinions are not supported by sufficient facts and data nor reliable methodology.

To be sure, the report is not rife with data, but the subject of Santa Maria's report and testimony is not a data-heavy matter. Santa Maria's recommendations are, instead, based on meeting with the Rekshynskyj Plaintiffs, a walkthrough of the Rekshynskyj Plaintiffs' home, and his experience as a contractor.

Estimating the cost of a project is a typical function of a licensed contractor, and therefore Santa Maria's estimations, arrived at upon inspection of the Rekshynskyj Plaintiffs' residence, will not be excluded for unreliable methodology or lack of data.

Held

• The Court granted in part and denied in part Defendant's motion to exclude Plaintiffs' expert Adam Grill.

• The Court granted in part and denied in part Defendant's motion to exclude Plaintiffs' expert Anthony L. Santa Maria.

Key Takeaway

In certain fields, experience is the predominant, if not sole, basis for a great deal of reliable expert testimony.

Case Details: