Corneli v. Adventure Racing Co., LLC
1:12-cv-01303
N.D.N.Y.Jul 10, 2015Background
- On March 12, 2012, plaintiff Sergio Corneli was struck while driving a go-kart at Adventure Racing; he suffered a spinal injury and is paraplegic. The collision involved C.S., a 17-year-old with Down Syndrome; defendants include Adventure Racing and C.S.’s parents, the Lappers.
- Plaintiff alleges negligence and negligent supervision; discovery produced medical records, depositions, site inspections, and multiple expert reports. Some summary judgment rulings narrowed claims but left negligence claims against Adventure Racing and C.S., and negligent supervision against Charlotte Lapper.
- Multiple Daubert-type motions followed: the Lappers and Adventure Racing moved to exclude plaintiff’s experts (Dr. Jonathan Korn, William Avery, Kenneth Laughery, France Verville, James Lambrinos); plaintiff moved to exclude defense experts (Kenneth Martin, Dr. Jeffrey Oppenheim).
- Disputed expert topics included medical causation of the spinal injury, operational/safety practices and warnings at the track, human factors/warning design, life‑care and cost projections, lost-earnings economics, and industry compliance inspections.
- The magistrate judge performed a Daubert/Fed. R. Evid. 702 analysis and recommended denial of all exclusion motions, finding the experts generally qualified, their methodologies sufficiently reliable, and their testimony relevant and helpful to the trier of fact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Dr. Jonathan Korn (orthopedist) on causation | Korn offers medical causation linking spinal flexion to the go-kart collision. | Defendants: Korn lacks biomechanical/engineering credentials and didn’t test karts; opinions on mechanism are outside his expertise. | Denied — Korn is qualified to give medical causation opinions; specific kart testing not required for his medical opinion. |
| Admissibility of William Avery (amusement safety) on operations and liability | Avery will opine Adventure Racing’s safety failures and that incident was foreseeable. | Lappers: Avery lacks qualifications to opine on driver intent/psychology; relies on hearsay deposition accounts; invades jury’s role. Adventure Racing: subjective, not standardized. | Denied — Avery qualified on operational safety; may rely on depositions under Fed. R. Evid. 703; opinions assist jury. |
| Admissibility of Kenneth Laughery (human factors/warnings) on signage/warnings | Laughery opines signs overwarned and were poorly placed, contributing to incident. | Adventure Racing: opinions speculative, unsupported by methodology. | Denied — Laughery’s background and review of materials provide reliable human-factors basis. |
| Admissibility of France Verville (life‑care planner/OT) on future needs and costs | Verville presents life‑care plan and cost projections. | Adventure Racing: lacks formal life-care certification. | Denied — extensive occupational therapy and life‑care experience suffice; certification unnecessary. |
| Admissibility of James Lambrinos (economist) on future lost earnings | Lambrinos will compute lifetime earnings losses using medical assumptions. | Adventure Racing: not a medical/vocational expert; assumptions of total disability improper. | Denied — economist may rely on medical opinions; qualifications sufficient for lost-earnings analysis. |
| Admissibility of Kenneth Martin (defense amusement‑ride inspector) on compliance | Martin will testify Adventure Racing complied with standards and signage requirements. | Plaintiff: Martin unqualified, speculative, and inspection was inadequate. | Denied — Martin has relevant inspection experience; critiques go to weight, not admissibility. |
| Admissibility of Dr. Jeffrey Oppenheim (neurosurgeon) on causation, preexisting condition, and Advil effect | Oppenheim: either impact could have caused fracture; ankylosing spondylitis increased susceptibility; Advil may have contributed to hemorrhage. | Plaintiff: Oppenheim failed to review critical imaging and cite studies re: Advil; opinions speculative. | Denied — neurosurgeon testimony on medical causation, preexisting condition, and medication effects is within his expertise and relevant; limits noted (e.g., “high risk activity” characterization is outside his scope). |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (expert testimony must be reliable and relevant under Fed. R. Evid. 702)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (Daubert gatekeeping applies to technical and other specialized expert testimony)
- Nimely v. City of New York, 414 F.3d 381 (2d Cir. standard for admissibility under Rule 702)
- Amorgianos v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., 303 F.3d 256 (factors for assessing reliability of expert methodology)
- United States v. Williams, 506 F.3d 151 (enumerating indicia of reliability under Rule 702)
- McCullock v. H.B. Fuller Co., 61 F.3d 1038 (medical experts may opine on causation based on training and experience)
- SR Int'l Bus. Ins. Co. v. World Trade Ctr. Props., 467 F.3d 107 (experience can be sufficient basis for expert testimony on industry practice)
- Zaremba v. Gen. Motors Corp., 360 F.3d 355 (consider peer review and publication in evaluating scientific reliability)
- In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig., 35 F.3d 717 (minor flaws in expert reasoning do not mandate exclusion)