Wiedeman v. Canal Insurance Company, 1:15-cv-04182

Collision on August 8, 2014 between plaintiff Gregory Wiedeman (motorcyclist) and a truck driven by Walter Patrick Dorn, IV, an H&F Transfer employee; parties dispute right-of-way and whether Wiedeman lost control before impact.
H&F retained Daren Marceau, a civil/forensic engineer and accident reconstructionist, to opine on crash mechanics, including that Wiedeman locked his rear brake alone and lost control prior to impact.
Marceau relied on tire/skid marks, lack of grill damage on the truck, and witness testimony (LuAnn Downes heard skidding); he described his methodology as combining physical evidence and basic physics informed by his training and experience.
Wiedeman moved to exclude Marceau under Daubert, arguing Marceau performed no calculations or testing, did not consult authoritative literature, ignored alternative explanations, and thus his opinion is unreliable and not helpful to the jury.
H&F withdrew two of Marceau’s opinions (that Wiedeman’s vision was impaired and that he could have avoided the collision); the court treated those as moot and addressed only the rear-brake/ loss-of-control opinion.
The court found Marceau qualified, his methodology sufficiently reliable for the particular opinion, he considered alternative explanations, and his testimony would assist the jury, so the motion was denied in part and denied in part as moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility — expert qualifications	Marceau lacks reliable methodology despite credentials	Marceau is a qualified engineer/reconstructionist with relevant experience	Qualified: court accepts Marceau as qualified to opine on motorcycle braking effects
Reliability — lack of calculations/testing	Marceau did no calculations or testing; opinion unsupported	Calculations not necessary: Marceau relied on skid marks, measurements, witness statements, and accepted reconstruction principles	Reliable: court accepts methodology without detailed calculations for this opinion
Reliability — failure to consider alternatives	Marceau ignored plausible alternative (both brakes/front lock)	Marceau considered and rejected alternative after analysis	Reliable: court finds Marceau adequately addressed alternatives
Helpfulness to jury (fit)	Testimony not helpful because methodology flawed	Jury needs expertise on brake differences, skid marks, stability effects	Admissible: testimony will assist jury; opinion admitted (except withdrawn topics)

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (general admissibility factors for expert testimony)
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (trial court has leeway in assessing expert reliability across disciplines)
United States v. Frazier, 387 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir.) (articulating Daubert framework in Eleventh Circuit)
United States v. Scott, [citation="403 F. App'x 392"] (11th Cir.) (discussing Rule 702 admissibility requirements)