John Senese v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co, 661 F. App'x 771

On Sept. 2, 2009 John Senese collided with a parked car and sued his insurer, Liberty Mutual, for uninsured motorist benefits, alleging an unidentified negligent driver forced him into the parked car.
Liberty Mutual denied liability, arguing Senese could not prove an unidentified motorist existed, was negligent, or caused the collision.
Senese proffered accident-reconstruction expert Steven Rickard; the district court excluded most of Rickard’s causal opinions under Daubert and limited him to scene measurements and posted speed limits.
At a bifurcated jury trial on liability, the jury found (1) an unidentified motorist existed, (2) that motorist was negligent, but (3) that the motorist’s negligence was not a factual cause of Senese’s injury; judgment for Liberty Mutual entered accordingly.
Senese moved for a new trial arguing (a) the Daubert exclusion of Rickard’s causation testimony was an abuse of discretion and (b) the jury verdict was internally inconsistent; the district court denied the motion and Senese appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of Rickard’s reconstruction testimony under Fed. R. Evid. 702	Rickard’s methods and experience satisfied Rule 702; reconstruction testimony is commonly admissible	Rickard’s opinions lacked reliable foundation, largely repeated Senese’s testimony, and would invade the jury’s credibility determination	Affirmed exclusion: testimony unreliable, speculative, and unhelpful; limiting testimony was within district court discretion
Consistency of jury answers on special interrogatories (negligence vs. causation)	The jury’s finding that the unidentified motorist was negligent yet not a factual cause is irreconcilable and requires a new trial	The answers can be harmonized: jury could reject parts of Senese’s credibility and find Senese’s conduct, not the unidentified motorist’s negligence, caused the collision	Affirmed: court reasonably reconciled the answers; no abuse of discretion denying new trial

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (expert testimony must be reliable and fit the case)
In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig., 35 F.3d 717 (expert reliability — ‘good grounds’ standard)
Oddi v. Ford Motor Co., 234 F.3d 136 (appellate standard for reviewing Daubert rulings; district courts need not hold a hearing if record is adequate)
Thabault v. Chait, 541 F.3d 512 (standard of review for Rule 59(a) new-trial denial)
Gallick v. B. & O. R. R., 372 U.S. 108 (duty to harmonize answers to special interrogatories)
Waldorf v. Shuta, 142 F.3d 601 (deference to reasoned district court determinations)
Calhoun v. Yamaha Motor Corp. U.S.A., 350 F.3d 316 (qualifications for expert testimony)
Bhaya v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 832 F.2d 258 (credibility determinations belong to the jury)
Bradford-White Corp. v. Ernst & Whinney, 872 F.2d 1153 (molding judgment consistent with jury interrogatory answers)