Allen et al v. Gentry et al
Filing
102
ORDER denying 88 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 96 Motion to Strike ; denying 96 Motion to limit testimony. Signed by Chief District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr on 02/05/2013 (Guirola, Louis)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JAMES L. ALLEN, ET AL.
PLAINTIFFS
v.
CAUSE NO. 1:11CV313 LG-RHW
SHAWN F. GENTRY, ET AL.
DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
AND DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE OR LIMIT TESTIMONY
BEFORE THE COURT are 1) the Motion [88] for Summary Judgment filed
by Defendants Shawn F. Gentry and D&E Transportation, Inc., and 2) Plaintiffs’
Motion [96] to Strike or Limit Testimony of Proposed Accident Reconstructionist,
Jason Walton. The issues have been fully briefed. After due consideration of the
parties’ submissions and the relevant law, it is the Court’s opinion that both
Motions should be denied. Jason Walton’s expert accident reconstruction opinion
testimony is admissible, and there is a question of material fact concerning how the
accident at issue in this case occurred.
PLAINTIFFS’ ALLEGATIONS
This case involves a motor vehicle accident that occurred while Plaintiff
James L. Allen was driving a commercial garbage truck owned by Waste
Management Services, and Defendant Shawn F. Gentry was driving an eighteenwheel truck owned by D&E Transportation, Inc. Allen alleges that he was traveling
south in the right-hand lane of Highway 603 in Hancock County, Mississippi, when
Gentry passed him in the left lane, and then rapidly applied his brakes. Allen
alleges that Gentry’s truck jackknifed in front of him, causing him to unavoidably
strike the rear of the truck. As a result, Allen suffered injuries requiring present
and future treatment. He seeks compensatory damages. His wife, Plaintiff Patricia
Allen, seeks damages for loss of consortium.
THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION
Gentry and D&E Transportation seek summary judgment, arguing that the
evidence supporting their version of the accident is more credible than the evidence
supporting Allen’s allegations. Gentry argues that he was traveling in the righthand lane of 603 at all times. He had to apply his brakes to allow a vehicle in front
of him to make a right turn off the highway. When he did so, he felt Allen’s truck
push him from behind. (Mot. Summ. J. Ex. B 103-04, ECF No. 88-2). The
combination of Gentry’s braking and Allen’s truck pushing from behind caused
Gentry’s truck to jackknife. The vehicles came to rest on the right shoulder of
Highway 603.
The Defendants hired an accident reconstructionist, Jason Walton, to review
the evidence and develop opinions about the cause of the accident. He visited the
crash site, reviewed documents and photographs, reviewed deposition testimony
and mapped the scene. According to Walton, the evidence shows that Gentry was in
the right-hand lane, traveling straight ahead, when Allen struck him from behind.
(Mot. Summ. J. Ex. D 5 (¶11), ECF No. 88-4). In Walton’s opinion, an eighteen
wheeler will not jackknife on a dry road without some outside force acting on it. (Id.
(¶12)). Thus, in Walton’s opinion, the accident occurred because of Allen’s actions
as Gentry said it did, rather than as a result of Gentry’s actions as Allen alleged.
-2-
Allen testified that he remembered Gentry “passing me and coming over, and
the next thing I know, my world changed.” (Pl. Resp. Ex. A 44, ECF No. 93-1).
Allen also submits the testimony of Jessica Steele, a witness to the accident. She
was employed at the Hancock County Child Development Center, located on
Highway 603. The accident occurred while she was outside supervising children in
the play yard. She related that she observed a car next to the daycare center “pull[
] out. That rig was coming. And when that rig come, he automatically switched
lanes. I don’t recall if there was brakes or anything like that. When he switched
lanes, you just all of a sudden started hearing everything. And he caught the Waste
Management truck.” (Pl. Resp. Ex. B 26, ECF No. 93-2).
The Defendants acknowledge the conflict in the evidence but argue that “the
physical evidence at the scene tells the only story that the Court need examine.”
(Reply Memo. 2, ECF No. 95). The Court disagrees. A motion for summary
judgment shall be granted “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as
to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The Court must view the evidence in the light most favorable
to the non-moving party. Abarca v. Metro. Transit Auth., 404 F.3d 938, 940 (5th
Cir. 2005). A “material fact” is one that might affect the outcome of the suit under
the governing law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A
genuine dispute about a material fact exists when the evidence is such that a
reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party. Id.
Defendants expect the jury to disregard the testimony of Allen and Jessica
-3-
Steele in favor of the evidence supporting its version of events. But viewed in the
light most favorable to the non-movant, the evidence could also support a jury
verdict for the Plaintiff. The Court therefore finds summary judgment
inappropriate. The Defendant’s Motion will be denied.
THE MOTION TO STRIKE OR LIMIT TESTIMONY
The Plaintiffs object to Jason Walton’s expert report, asserting that he is
unqualified to render any opinions and does not possess the knowledge, skill,
experience, training or education to provide an expert opinion in this case. They
contend that he could not examine any physical evidence because the accident had
occurred three years prior to his employment. Plaintiffs contend that his opinions
about the actions of the vehicles prior to the impact have no foundation, as they are
not based on any scientific methodology whatsoever. Plaintiffs further assert that
Walton is not qualified to disagree with Jessica Steele’s testimony about the
accident or the investigating officer’s accident report.
Federal Rule of Evidence 702 provides for the admission of expert testimony
that assists the trier of fact in understanding the evidence or in determining a fact
in issue. A court is charged with a “gatekeeping function” to ensure expert
testimony is both reliable and relevant. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509
U.S. 579, 597 (1993). Reliability is analyzed under Rule 702, which requires that:
(1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the
product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the
principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case. FED. R. EVID. 702.
-4-
Further, the expert witness must be qualified “by knowledge, skill, experience,
training, or education. . . .” Id. A court must exclude an expert witness “if it finds
that the witness is not qualified to testify in a particular field or on a given subject.”
Wilson v. Woods, 163 F.3d 935, 937 (5th Cir. 1999).
Plaintiffs do not support their argument that Walton is unqualified to testify
as an expert accident reconstructionist in this case. The Defendants show that
Walton was trained as an accident reconstructionist by the Mississippi Highway
Patrol. He spent ten years as a Mississippi State Trooper, during which time he
investigated at least 900 collisions. He has peer-reviewed over 2000 accident
reports, is certified in Forensic Mapping and Crash Data Retrieval downloads, and
has been qualified as an expert in the field of accident reconstruction in a number of
Mississippi courts. Clearly, Walton’s qualifications are sufficient for him to testify
in this case regarding accident reconstruction.
In regard to the adequacy of Walton’s investigation, the Defendants show
that Walton examined photographs of the accident scene, reviewed testimony of all
of the witnesses, reviewed the accident report prepared by the police department,
measured the accident site, analyzed the accident scenario, and interpreted the skid
marks. The Court finds that Walton's opinions are based on the laws of physics and
on routine calculations which have been tested, peer-reviewed, and regularly relied
on by an accident reconstructionist. His opinion testimony will be allowed.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion [88]
for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Shawn F. Gentry and D&E
-5-
Transportation, Inc. is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs’ Motion
[96] to Strike or Limit Testimony of Proposed Accident Reconstructionist, Jason
Walton is DENIED.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 5th day of February, 2013.
s/
Louis Guirola, Jr.
LOUIS GUIROLA, JR.
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
-6-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?