According to the Opinion, the Defendant driver and his employer filed motions seeking to preclude the trucking safety expert’s opinions pursuant to Pa. R.E. 702(c) and Pa. R.C.P. 207.1 on the grounds that the expert’s methodology was allegedly not generally accepted in the motor carrier industry. In the alternative, the Defendants sought to depose the expert under Pa. R.C.P. 4003.5(a)(2) in support of their Motion to Preclude.
The court ruled that the evidence submitted by the parties did not establish that the Plaintiff’s expert relied upon any novel scientific evidence or a methodology that has failed to gain general acceptance in the commercial transportation industry.
The court therefore found the defense’s Motion to Preclude the Plaintiff’s Expert Opinion to be without merit. As such, the court saw no need for an evidentiary hearing on the validity of the expert opinion or any reason to allow for a deposition of the expert.
The Defendants had also filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment that was addressed in this Opinion as well.
|Judge Terrence R. Nealon
Judge Nealon granted the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment with regards to the Plaintiff’s claims of recklessness and punitive damages against the driver as no evidence of any reckless conduct by the driver was produced in the record.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.