Fabre v. Mega Transportation Services, LLC et al

Filing 78

RULING granting 68 Defts Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Dr. Marius Ziejewiski. Signed by Judge James J. Brady on 4/10/2013. (JDL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
BOBBY FABRE
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 11-800-JJB
ROYAL FREIGHT, LP AND MEGA
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, LLC
RULING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY
This matter is before the Court on a motion to exclude expert testimony filed by
Defendants Royal Freight, L.P. and Mega Transportation Services, L.L.C. (collectively referred
to as “Defendants”). (Doc. 68). Plaintiff Bobby Fabre (“Fabre”) has filed an opposition (Doc.
72), to which Defendants have filed a reply. (Doc. 77). Oral argument is not necessary. The
Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. For the reasons herein, the Court GRANTS
Defendants’ motion to exclude. (Doc. 68).
I.
Fabre filed this action for personal injuries sustained when Defendants’ employee,
Bennie Wilder1, while acting in the scope of his employment, rear-ended Fabre on Interstate 10
on or about August 7, 2011. (Doc. 1). The facts are undisputed and Defendants have stipulated to
liability in this matter. (Doc. 49). Defendants seek to exclude the testimony of a biomechanical
engineer, Dr. Marius Ziejewski, on the grounds that Dr. Ziejewski’s testimony is irrelevant to the
remaining issues to be tried in this case, causation and damages. (Doc. 68).
In a previous ruling, this Court excluded the expert testimony of an accident
reconstruction expert, finding that because the Defendants have conceded that Fabre sustained
injuries because of this accident, testimony relating to the severity of the impact by an accident
1

Wilder is not a party to this action.

1

reconstruction expert was irrelevant. (Doc. 63). Defendants assert that Dr. Ziejewski’s testimony
addresses the same type of evidence that this Court has already excluded as irrelevant because
Dr. Ziejewski plans to testify about whether or not the force of the impact was sufficient to cause
Fabre’s injuries. (Doc. 68).
In opposition, Fabre argues that Defendants have not stipulated to causation between the
August 7, 2011 accident and Fabre’s injuries. (Doc. 72). Fabre is concerned that Defendants will
argue that while they were liable for the accident, Fabre was not injured. Fabre asserts that Dr.
Ziejewski’s testimony will address the causal relationship between the accident and the injury
and aid the jury in determining that Fabre’s injuries were caused by the accident.
In reply, Defendants object to Fabre’s arguments concerning causation because
Defendants “concede that plaintiff sustained some injury in the accident at issue.” (Doc. 77 at 1).
The issues of damages and causation relate to the “full nature and extent of Fabre’s alleged
injuries.” (Id.). Defendants point out that other experts who treated and evaluated Fabre after the
accident will be able to testify to the extent of his injuries. Moreover, Defendants assert that
Fabre is permitted to argue that the accident was “high-impact,” and that the jury can understand
this argument without the help of an expert.
II.
Admissibility of expert testimony is governed by Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which
provides:
A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill,
experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an
opinion or otherwise if:
(a) the expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge
will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to
determine a fact in issue;
(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
2

(c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods;
and
(d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the
facts of the case.
Fed. R. Evid. 702. Under Rule 702, the trial court functions as a gatekeeper and must determine
whether “an expert’s testimony both rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant[.]” Daubert v.
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 597 (1993).
Here, the Court finds that, as it did in its prior ruling, that Dr. Ziejewski’s testimony “is
not needed to assist the jury’s understanding of a simple fact: serious injury can result from an
accident involving severe impact.” (Doc. 63 at 7). Additionally, as this Court explained, “to the
extent that jurors need help understanding this fact, the parties are free to call on medical
experts.” (Id.). A reasonable trier-of-fact can call upon common sense principles to conclude that
an 18-wheeler that rear-ends a vehicle can cause serious injury.
III.
Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Exclude the Expert Testimony of Dr. Marius
Ziejewiski is GRANTED. (Doc. 68).

Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana on April 10, 2013.





JAMES J. BRADY, DISTRICT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

3