Opinion
NO. 99-487 c/w 99-2567.
February 23, 2001.
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court are CSX Transportation, Inc.'s Motions to Exclude or Limit the Testimony of George J. Mahl, III, and I. Robert Ehrlich, Ph.D. For the following reasons, the Motions are GRANTED.
A. BACKGROUND
These consolidated cases arise out of a truck-train accident in New Orleans, Louisiana, on July 17, 1998. The driver of the truck, Derek Crayton, contends that the crossing signal at the intersection was inoperative and that overgrown vegetation obscured his view of the on-coming train. His attorneys hired two experts, George J. Mahl, III, and I. Robert Ehrlich, Ph.D., to opine that the broken signal and the overgrown vegetation caused the accident. Third-party defendant CSX Transportation, Inc. ("CSX") now moves to exclude or limit the testimony of both putative experts.
B. LAW AND ANALYSIS
Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Evidence, a qualified expert witness may testifZi if scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue." FED. R. EVID. 702. Before allowing such testimony, the district court must make initial determinations concerning the qualification of the potential witness and the admissibility of the proposed evidence. FED. R. EVID. 104(a). In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S. Ct. 2786, 125 L. Ed.2d 469 (1993), and Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 119 S. Ct. 1167, 119 S. Ct. 1167 (1999), the Supreme Court emphasized that district courts are to execute a gate-keeping function by allowing only reliable and relevant expert testimony into evidence and provided several factors to guide district courts in determining the admissibility of an expert opinion.
In the instant case, the qualifications of the proposed experts in their fields are not at issue. Both are experienced engineers, and Dr. Ehrlich has a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from the University of Michigan. Their credentials notwithstanding, the Court finds that the opinions they intend to offer will not assist the jury "to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue." FED. R. EVID. 702.
First, a Ph.D. from one of the country's finest engineering schools certainly is not required to reach the common-sense conclusion that "[h]ad the foliage along this section of track been properly maintained, Crayton would have been able to see if a train was approaching without getting so close to the tracks as to put himself in danger." Ehrlich Report p. 10 (Conclusion 4). Indeed, as Liberty Mutual notes, "[s]everal independent witnesses will testify that they were familiar with the crossing and that foliage had overgrown the area so significantly that drivers crossing the tracks were required to pull too near the tracks to assure the way was clear of train traffic." Opp'n Mem. p. 6. The Court finds that the jury will be able to determine whether the foliage impeded Crayton's view through common sense and lay witness testimony and, accordingly, GRANTS CSX's Motion to Exclude the Expert Testimony of I. Robert Ehrlich, Ph.D. Cf.Peters v. Five Star Marine Serv., 898 F.2d 448 (5th Cir. 1990) (affirming trial court's exclusion of expert testimony where jurors could competently assess issues based on their own knowledge and experience).
The Court further notes that this decision should come as no surprise to the parties. See April 6, 2000 Order and Reasons p. 5. (". . . the Court has trouble envisioning what assistance an "expert" opinion regarding overgrown vegetation could provide the jury.").
Second, Mr. Mahl is in no better position than the jury to determine whether the crossing signal was operational at the time of the accident. Mr. Mahl offers no opinion as to a systemic or component failure in the signal or as to any defect in its design. Instead, as he admitted at deposition, "the only basis for [his] opinion that the signal system didn't work at the time of the accident is. . . the conflicting testimony from witnesses and the train crew. . ." Mahl Dep. 68. As Liberty Mutual notes, "[s]everal eyewitnesses will testify that the signals malfunctioned for weeks before the accident and were not functioning at the time of the accident." Opp'n Mem. p. 3. Any person who has driven in New Orleans will understand that traffic signals don't always work when they're supposed to. The Court, therefore, finds that the jury will be able to determine through common sense and lay witness testimony whether the signal light was operational and GRANTS CSX's Motion to Exclude the Expert Testimony of George J. Mahl, III. If the Court allows CSX to call Forrest Ballinger to testify regarding the signal's "failsafe" mechanism, the Court may allow Crayton, et al. to call Mr. Mahl as a rebuttal witness to discuss how "failsafe" signals may nonetheless fail. (It seems probable that this testimony could be elicited on cross-examination.) Even under this scenario, however, Mr. Mahl will not be allowed to opine as to whether this signal failed.
Liberty Mutual mentions Mr. Ballinger's opinions in its Opposition Memorandum. Although the propriety of allowing Mr. Ballinger to testify as an expert witness presently is not at issue, assuming the accuracy of Liberty Mutual's characterization of his opinions, the Court suspects that his opinions suffer from the same shortcomings as Mr. Mahl's opinions.
C. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above,
IT IS ORDERED that CSX Transportation, Inc.'s Motions to Exclude or Limit the Testimony of George J. Mahl, III, and I. Robert Ehrlich, Ph.D. are GRANTED.