In an Opinion that is tersely worded at times in the case of Medina v. One Stop Center, Inc., No. 2:22-CV-01031-CB (Jan. 2, 2025 Bissoon, J.), the court granted a Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on a claim for punitive damages in a trucking accident case. In so ruling, the court also reject the Plaintiff’s liability expert’s opinion.
As to the Plaintiff’s expert, the court found that the expert’s opinion did not meet the standards required by Federal Rules of Evidence 702. The court additionally faulted the expert for veering into areas reserved for the jury, that is, by offering opinions based on his assessment of the credibility of witnesses and parties.
Overall, reviewing then facts of the case, which involved an accident when the drivers encountered unexpected black ice on the roadway, did not support a finding of reckless indifference on the part of the Defendant driver. Accordingly, the court granted the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by one of the Defendant.
Relative to a separate decision in this Opinion on a Borrowed Servant Doctrine issue raised by a different Defendant, the Court denied that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on that issue
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
I send thanks to Attorney Aaron H. Weiss of the Pittsburgh, PA law firm of Zimmer Kunz, PLLC, for bringing this case to my attention.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
I send thanks to Attorney Aaron H. Weiss of the Pittsburgh, PA law firm of Zimmer Kunz, PLLC, for bringing this case to my attention.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.