United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Shreveport Division
HORNSBY, MAGISTRATE JUDGE
MEMORANDUM RULING
S.
MAURICE HICKS, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before
the Court is Defendants Ernest Collins, II
(“Collins”), Greyhound Lines, Inc.
(“Greyhound”), and National Union Fire Insurance
Co. of Pittsburgh, PA's (“National Union”)
(collectively “Defendants”) Daubert
Motion regarding Plaintiff Yolanda Dennis'
(“Dennis”) retained expert witness, John C.
Laughlin (“Laughlin”). See Record
Document 45. Defendants filed the instant Daubert
Motion on the grounds that Laughlin's opinions are
inadmissible because (1) they are not based on sufficient
facts or data and (2) they are not based on a reliable
application of the principles and methods of accident
reconstruction to the facts of the case. See Record
Document 45-1 at 4. For the reasons which follow,
Defendants' Motion is DENIED.
FACTUAL
BACKGROUND
Greyhound
is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in Texas that is engaged in the business of
transporting passengers by bus throughout the United States.
See Record Document 1-2 at ¶¶ 1-9. Collins
is a citizen of Texas who works as a bus driver for
Greyhound. See Record Document 37-3 at 5-17
(excerpts from Collins deposition). National Union is
Greyhound's insurer. See Record Document 1-2 at
¶ 4.
On June
15, 2014, Collins was driving a Greyhound bus from Shreveport
to Dallas, Texas. See Record Document 37-3 at 8.
While traveling south on Market Street in Shreveport just
before entering the on-ramp to take Interstate 20
(“I-20”) westbound, Collins collided with a GMC
SUV in which Dennis was a passenger. See Record
Document 1-2 at ¶ 5. Frederick Alford
(“Alford”) was driving the GMC SUV at the time of
the collision. See Record Document 45-3 (excerpts
from Alford deposition). Collins contends that as he was
traveling south in the far right lane of Market Street at
three to five miles per hour, a white Chevy truck cut him off
as the bus was about to reach the I-20 entrance ramp, forcing
him to hit the brakes and slightly veer to the right in his
own lane. See Record Document 45-2 (excerpts from
Collins deposition). He contends that at the same time, the
GMC SUV was attempting to pass the bus on the right shoulder
of the road, and that the back right corner of the bus
collided with the GMC SUV when he was forced to veer right
within his own lane.[1] See id. Dennis suffered injuries
as a result of the collision. See Record Document
1-2 at ¶ 10-11.
Dennis
filed the instant action in the First Judicial District Court
of Caddo Parish, Louisiana, on June 15, 2015, alleging that
(1) Collins' negligent driving and (2) Greyhound's
negligent supervision, teaching, and training of Collins
caused the collision and Dennis' injuries. See
id. at 2, 6. After receiving a discovery response
indicating that the amount in controversy was greater than
$75, 000, Defendants removed the case to this Court on
September 23, 2015. See Record Document 1.
Defendants filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on
July 1, 2016, arguing that Dennis' negligent supervision,
teaching, and training claims against Greyhound are subsumed
within her negligence claims against Collins under Louisiana
law. See Record Document 37. The Court granted the
Motion on November 9, 2016. See Dennis v. Collins,
2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155724 (W.D. La. 2016). On August 1,
2016, Defendants filed the instant Daubert Motion to
Exclude Laughlin's opinions. See Record Document
45. Collins filed a Memorandum in Opposition on August 15,
2016. See Record Document 46.
LAW
AND ANALYSIS
I.
LEGAL STANDARDS
A.
Admissibility of Expert Testimony
Federal
Rule of Evidence 702 governs the admissibility of expert
testimony. Rule 702 states that “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 all of the following elements are met:
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.
This
list of elements comes from Daubert v. Merrell Dow
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 570 (1993), and its
progeny. In Daubert, the Supreme Court stated that
courts are required to serve as gatekeepers for expert
testimony, ensuring that such testimony is both reliable and
relevant before it is admitted into evidence. See
509 U.S. at 589. Thus, requiring the proponent of a
particular expert to satisfy the four elements stated in Rule
702 is aimed at ensuring that any purported expert testimony
is both reliable and relevant. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 702,
Notes of Advisory Committee on 2000 Amendments.
Certain
factors should be considered in determining whether a
particular expert's opinions are reliable:
(1) whether the expert's technique or theory can be or
has been tested- that is, whether the expert's theory can
be challenged in some objective sense, or whether it is
instead simply a subjective, conclusory approach that cannot
reasonably be assessed for reliability; (2) whether the
technique or theory has been subject to peer review and
publication; (3) the known or potential rate of error of the
technique or theory when applied; (4) the existence and
maintenance of ...