Taylor v. Glenn et al

Filing 98

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 66 defendants' Motion to Exclude Plaintiff's Human Factors Expert, Dennis Wylie (as more fully set out). Signed by Honorable Vicki Miles-LaGrange on 2/4/2016. (ks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
DAVID ANTHONY TAYLOR,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CHAD LANDON GLENN and
KIMRAD TRANSPORT,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-14-462-M

ORDER
Before the Court is defendants’ Motion to Exclude Plaintiff’s Human Factors Expert, Dennis
Wylie, filed January 4, 2016. On January 22, 2016, plaintiff filed his response, and on January 29,
2016, defendants filed their reply. Based upon the parties’ submissions, the Court makes its
determination.
I.

Introduction
This case arises out of an automobile collision between a vehicle driven by plaintiff and a

tractor trailer driven by defendant Chad Landon Glenn (“Glenn”), an employee of defendant Kimrad
Transport. Plaintiff has retained Dennis Wylie (“Wylie”) as his human factors expert. It is Wylie’s
opinion that it is likely that due to fatigue Glenn suffered diminished attention, perception, decision
making, and vehicle control abilities at the time of the accident and that this diminishment was a
contributing factor in the accident. Wylie further opines that Glenn’s fatigue resulted from his
failure to get sleep of adequate quantity and quality, sleep that a reasonable and prudent driver
would realize was necessary for safe driving. Defendants now move this Court to exclude any and
all reports, testimony, and opinions of Wylie.

II.

Discussion
Federal Rule of Evidence 702 governs the admissibility of expert testimony based upon

scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge. It 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;
(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.
Defendants assert that Wylie’s opinions should be excluded because the information on
which Wylie relies is within the common knowledge of the trier of fact and, thus, is not a proper
subject for expert testimony. Defendants further assert that Wylie’s opinions are cumulative and
would not assist the jury in deciding any fact at issue in this case. Plaintiff contends that Wylie’s
opinions are based on scientific, technical, and specialized knowledge and Wylie, therefore, should
be allowed to testify. Additionally, plaintiff contends that because this case involves the unique
occupation of a commercial truck driver, Wylie’s opinions will assist the trier of fact.
Having carefully reviewed the parties’ submissions, the Court would initially note that Wylie
is qualified to render opinions as a human factors expert and that Wylie has vast knowledge and
experience regarding the effects of fatigue on commercial truck drivers. Further, while jurors can
draw on their own normal life experiences regarding fatigue, the Court finds certain relevant factors
that should be considered when determining fatigue, i.e., circadian rhythm and cumulative sleep

2

debt, may not be fully understood by a lay person juror and Wylie’s testimony would assist the jury.
Additionally, the Court finds Wylie’s log-book reconstruction would assist the jurors by providing
them with evidence regarding the amount of sleep Glenn had gotten over the days prior to the
accident. Accordingly, the Court finds that Wylie should not be excluded from testifying regarding
fatigue and the factors that should be considered when determining fatigue and regarding his logbook reconstruction.
However, the Court finds that Wylie’s opinions regarding the role Glenn’s purported fatigue
played in the accident at issue should be excluded. Specifically, the Court finds Wylie’s opinions
are not based on sufficient facts or data. Wylie’s opinions are solely based upon the hours Glenn
worked over the days prior to the accident. Wylie did not review the expert reports from the
accident reconstruction experts to determine whether Glenn responded to the accident appropriately
under the differing scenarios proposed, and, in fact, Wylie seems to have no real understanding of
the details regarding how the accident happened. Further, Wylie cannot point to any actions taken
by Glenn prior to the accident that are indicative of a fatigued driver. Finally, the Court finds that
the jurors are capable of using their own experiences and common sense to evaluate the effects of
fatigue on a person’s ability to drive and can consider for themselves whether any fatigue Glenn may
have suffered contributed to the accident.
III.

Conclusion
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN

PART defendants’ Motion to Exclude Plaintiff’s Human Factors Expert, Dennis Wylie [docket no.
66] as follows:
(1)

The Court GRANTS the motion to exclude as to Wylie’s opinions regarding the role
Glenn’s purported fatigue played in the accident at issue, and
3

(2)

The Court DENIES the motion to exclude as to Wylie’s opinions regarding fatigue
and the factors that should be considered when determining fatigue and regarding his
log-book reconstruction.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 4th day of February, 2016.

4