Rawle & Henderson: Reports & Articles: Transportation... -
[Cached Version]
Published on: 8/20/2006
Last Visited: 4/1/2008
In a recent decision by U.S. District Judge Edwin M. Kosik of the Middle District of Pennsylvania (Scranton), the Court precluded the testimony of plaintiff's trucking industry expert, Cecil Lane, of the SALT Institute in Phoenix, Arizona.
...
To support the negligent entrustment and punitive damage claims, plaintiff's counsel retained Cecil Lane of the SALT Institute.Lane performed his own reconstruction of the truck driver's hours of service purportedly based on the driver's logs, electronic messages, positioning records, fuelpurchase reports and bills of lading.
As part of his reconstruction of the truck driver's hours of service, Lane arbitrarily determined that the driver logged insufficient time for fueling and he added additional time to each log entry.According to Lane, it was not possible to fuel a tractor in fifteen minutes despite the use of electronic fuel cards.At his deposition, Lane cited the standard ten gallons per minute required for gasoline pumps fueling light duty trucks.However, he ignored the standard established by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations of 20 gallons per minute for diesel pumps fueling heavy duty tractors.
Similarly, Lane determined that the truck driver logged an insufficient amount of time to complete pre-trip inspections.Therefore, he arbitrarily added fifteen minutes to each pre-trip inspection log entry.In support of his opinion, Lane testified that he relied on "studies" which showed that it was not possible to perform a pre-trip inspection in fifteen minutes.However, Lane never specifically identified or produced those "studies."
Additionally, despite evidence that in accordance with the FMCSR, the trucking company relieved its drivers from duty during the loading and unloading of trailers, Lane changed each "off duty" log entry to "on duty" during loading and unloading.
Based on his reconstruction of the truck driver's hours of service, Lane concluded that the truck driver drove 91.5 hours in eight days, well over the hours of service limits.He determined that the truck driver falsified his logs in violation of the FMCSR and the trucking company was aware of the falsification.Furthermore, Lane concluded that the truck driver was driving in a state of fatigue at the time of the accident.
We filed a motion in limine to challenge the admissibility of Lane's opinions at trial.We argued that Lane was not a fatigue expert and his opinions were not based upon reliable methodology as required by Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
The Court agreed with our arguments and ruled that: "[Lane] admittedly does not qualify as a sleep expert to opine on [the truck driver's] mental arousal state or fatigue even if his opinion is based entirely on his reconstruction of [the truck driver's] hours of service from [the trucking company's] records acquired with the satellite system."The Court observed that "no witness, including the police report, has offered facts to suggest fatigue."Indeed, the truck driver "testified he had completed a nap before commencing the trip and was in good health."
The Court noted that "although Lane may be qualified on trucking industry matters, his opinions about defendants' violation of FMCSR regulations based on his reconstruction of computer records is suspect."The Court observed that Lane's calculation of the truck driver's "on-duty" time ignored the trucking company's policy of relieving its drivers from duty during loading and unloading.The Court concluded that "the entire thrust of [Lane's] testimony is based on his reconstruction of the computer records pertaining to [the truck driver's] operations for the carrier showing what he believes to be excessive hours of operation.