Bullock v. Freightliner, LLC et al

Filing 406

ORDER Defendants Objections to Plaintiffs Designation of Deposition Testimony of Thomas Canfield, M.D. ECF No. 380 are SUSTAINED IN PART and OVERRULED IN PART; Defendants Objections are sustained as to objections # 2 and 12. Plaintiff will not b e allowed to play for the jury the following portions of Dr. Thomas Canfields videotaped deposition: page 20, lines 6 through 12; and page 46, lines 15-18 (starting with I). (3) As to all other of Defendants Objections, the Objections are overruled, by Judge William J. Martinez on 3/14/2012. (ervsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge William J. Martínez
Civil Action No. 08-cv-00491-WJM-MEH
AMY BULLOCK, as an individual, as the next of kin and personal representative of
JEFFREY BULLOCK, deceased, and as parent and next friend of ADAM BULLOCK,
CHELSEA BULLOCK, and MELISSA BULLOCK,
Plaintiff,
v.
DAIMLER TRUCKS NORTH AMERICA, LLC, formerly known as Freightliner, LLC,
Defendant.

ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S DESIGNATION OF
DEPOSITION TESTIMONY OF THOMAS CANFIELD, M.D.

Plaintiff Amy Bullock brings this products liability action against Defendant
Daimler Trucks North America, alleging that Plaintiff’s husband’s death in a 2006
tractor-trailer rollover accident was caused by design defects in the truck, which was
manufactured by Defendant. One of the central factual disputes in this action is
whether Mr. Bullock was ejected from the tractor-trailer during the course of the
accident, as Plaintiff alleges (ECF No. 226, ¶ 20), or whether he was contained within
the tractor-trailer during the course of the accident, as Defendant alleges (ECF No. 231,
¶ 20; ECF No. 171, at 5.)
This matter is before the Court for decision on Defendant’s Objections (ECF No.
380) to Plaintiff’s Designation of Deposition Testimony of Thomas Canfield, M.D. (ECF

No. 355), and Plaintiff’s Response (ECF No. 382).1 Dr. Canfield is the forensic
pathologist who performed the autopsy on Mr. Bullock. (ECF No. 171, at 19; ECF No.
355-2.) Defendant has submitted fifteen objections to certain designated portions of Dr.
Canfield’s deposition. Thirteen of those objections are based only on Federal Rules of
Evidence 702 and 602. (ECF No. 380, at 5-9 (objections # 1, # 3-11, and # 13-16).)
The other two objections include hearsay objections under Federal Rule of Evidence
802. (ECF No. 380, at 5, 8 (objections # 2 and # 12).) In this Order, the Court will first
address and resolve the thirteen objections based only on Rules 702 and 602, and will
then address and resolve the two objections that include a Rule 802 hearsay objection.
I. ANALYSIS
A.

Objections # 1, # 3-11, and # 13-16
Defendant’s thirteen objections based only on Rules 702 and 602 all challenge

the same opinion of Dr. Canfield, namely, Dr. Canfield’s opinion that Mr. Bullock was
ejected from the tractor-trailer during the course of the accident.
The Court overrules these thirteen objections for two independent reasons. First,
Defendant failed to file a timely motion under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 challenging
Dr. Canfield’s qualifications to render an opinion as to whether Mr. Bullock was ejected
from the tractor-trailer. The Final Pretrial Order, entered on October 21, 2009, identifies
Dr. Canfield as an expert witness for Plaintiff, and states, “Dr. Canfield is the forensic
pathologist who performed the autopsy on Jeffrey Bullock, and he has knowledge and

1

As to the other pending objections to designations of deposition testimony of other
witnesses (see ECF No. 400, 404), the Court will orally rule on those objections on the morning
of the first day of trial.

2

information concerning the events related to the incident of August 15, 2006 as well as
knowledge and information concerning Jeffrey Bullock’s death and the circumstances
surrounding his death.” (ECF No. 171, at 19.) Dr. Canfield was deposed in this action
on September 20, 2011. (See ECF No. 355-2.) Plaintiff designated certain portions of
that deposition on September 23, 2011 (ECF No. 355), and Defendant filed counterdesignations on September 26, 2011 (ECF No. 357). It was not until February 27, 2012
– four days prior to the Final Trial Preparation Conference in this action – that
Defendant finally objected in any way to Dr. Canfield’s testimony. This late challenge
violates the Court’s practice standards. See WJM Revised Practice Standard III.F.4
(“Motions under Fed. R. Evid. 702 often require additional time for the Court to fully
analyze. Thus, the parties should file such motions as early as is practicable and, in all
civil cases, not later than 60 days prior to the Final Trial Preparation Conference.”).
Defendants’ objections # 1, 3-11, and 13-16 are overruled on this basis.
Objections # 1, 3-11, and 13-16 are also overruled on the substance of the
objections. The Court finds that Dr. Canfield is qualified to render an expert opinion that
Mr. Bullock was ejected from the tractor-trailer during the course of the accident. Dr.
Canfield is well-qualified in the field of forensic pathology. (ECF No. 382-1.) Dr.
Canfield’s autopsy report detailed the severe and numerous contusions, abrasions, and
lacerations on Mr. Bullock’s body, as well as ingrained dirt and vegetable material,
including pine needles, on Mr. Bullock’s back. (ECF No. 382-3, at 5-6.) Dr. Canfield
testified under oath at his deposition that those confusions, abrasions, lacerations, and
ingrained dirt and vegetable materials indicate that Mr. Bullock was ejected from the
truck during the course of the accident (as opposed to, for example, being dragged from
3

the truck following the accident). (ECF No. 382-2, at 20:17-21:10; 66:9-68:4.) Dr.
Canfield also testified under oath that over the past 45 years he has conducted
autopsies on approximately 100 individuals who have been ejected from motor vehicles,
and on thousands of other victims of motor vehicle accidents, and that based on that
knowledge he believes Mr. Bullock’s injuries were caused by an ejection from the
tractor-trailer. (Id. at 21:11-22:6; 47:4-17.) The Court finds that Mr. Canfield is qualified
to express this opinion and that his opinion is sufficiently reliable. See Fed. R. Evid.
702; Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 593-94 (1993).2 Because of
this ruling, Defendant’s Rule 602 objections also lack merit. See Fed. R. Evid. 602
(“This rule does not apply to a witness’s expert testimony . . . .”).
One of Defendant’s primary arguments in support of its objections is that Dr.
Canfield is not an expert in accident reconstruction, and therefore Dr. Canfield should
only be expressing opinions such as that Mr. Bullock died from blunt force trauma. A
mechanical engineer engaging in accident reconstruction examines the physical
evidence at an accident scene to attempt to reconstruct what occurred during the
course of the accident. Some of the relevant physical evidence here was the condition
of Mr. Bullock’s body following the accident. A mechanical engineer is not qualified to
express an opinion regarding how Mr. Bullock’s physical injuries reflect what occurred
during the course of the accident. Dr. Canfield is so qualified.
Defendants’ objections # 1, # 3-11, and # 13-16 are overruled.

2

Federal law governs the admissibility of Dr. Canfield’s deposition testimony. See Orth
v. Emerson Elec. Co., 980 F.2d 632, 636 (10th Cir. 1992) (in diversity products liability case,
court stated that “[f]ederal law controls questions concerning foundation for expert testimony”).

4

B.

Objections # 2 and 12
Defendant’s Objections # 2 and 12 include hearsay objections under Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 802. (ECF No. 380, at 5, 9.) Plaintiff’s Response to
Defendant’s Objections in no way addresses these hearsay issues. (See ECF No.
382.)
The Court agrees with Defendant that this testimony (at 20:6-12 and 46:15-18 of
the deposition transcript) is properly excluded under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
802, and that no exceptions to the hearsay rule apply. Therefore, the Court will sustain
Defendant’s Objections # 2 and # 12.
II. CONCLUSION
In accordance with the foregoing, the Court ORDERS as follows:
(1)

Defendant’s Objections to Plaintiff’s Designation of Deposition Testimony
of Thomas Canfield, M.D. (ECF No. 380) are SUSTAINED IN PART and
OVERRULED IN PART;

(2)

Defendant’s Objections are sustained as to objections # 2 and 12. Plaintiff
will not be allowed to play for the jury the following portions of Dr. Thomas
Canfield’s videotaped deposition: page 20, lines 6 through 12; and page
46, lines 15-18 (starting with “I”).

(3)

As to all other of Defendant’s Objections, the Objections are overruled.

5

Dated this 14th day of March, 2012.
BY THE COURT:

William J. Martínez
United States District Judge

6