Expert Testimony On Trucking Regulations
The Georgia Court of Appeals issued an interesting opinion this week in a truck wreck case, PN Express v. Zegel.
Among other things, the Court of Appeals addressed the issue of expert testimony regarding the meaning of Federal Motor Carrier Safety Standards.
In many cases, defendant trucking companies have successfully argued that expert testimony regarding the meaning of federal regulations was not susceptible to expert testimony. The reasoning behind these rulings was twofold. The first rationale was that the court could charge the language of the regulation to the jury, and, as such, the regulation was self–explanatory. The second rationale was that the testimony went to the ultimate issue of liability and was beyond the scope of admissible expert testimony.
In Zegel, the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court which allowed such testimony. In that case, the plaintiffs’ expert witness testified that the federal regulations held that once a carrier has shared its DOT number with a driver or employee, the carrier was responsible and liable for the actions of the driver or employee.
The defendant argued that the testimony was inadmissible because it addressed the ultimate issue of liability.
In rejecting the defendant’s argument and upholding the trial court, the Court of Appeals ruled that testimony of an expert, even as to the ultimate issue, is admissible where the conclusion of the expert is one which jurors would not ordinarily be able to draw themselves.
The Court of Appeals went on to hold that the expert’s testimony related to his knowledge of federal trucking regulations which were unfamiliar to laymen.
This holding should resolve this issue concerning expert testimony regarding federal trucking regulations.
