United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division
OPINION AND ORDER
WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Gregory
Wiedeman's (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Exclude
Daren Marceau Pursuant to Daubert v. Merrell Dow
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.  (“Motion”).
action arises from an August 8, 2014, collision (the
“Collision”) between Plaintiff and Defendant
Walter Patrick Dorn, IV, an employee of Defendant H&F
Transfer, Inc. (“H&F”). The parties dispute,
among other things, which party had the right-of-way and
whether Plaintiff had lost control of his motorcycle before
being struck by H&F's truck.
intends to call Daren Marceau to testify regarding the
mechanics of the crash, including the appropriateness of
Plaintiff s actions prior to the Collision. Plaintiff
challenges the following of Marceau's opinions:
• Plaintiff could have avoided the Collision if
Plaintiff had noticed and reacted to the truck's movement
earlier, ( at 14-15);
• Plaintiff improperly activated and locked his rear
brake alone, resulting in a loss of control prior to impact,
(id at 12); and
• Plaintiff's vision was impaired by his tinted
helmet visor, the raindrops hitting his visor, and the glare
created by headlights reflecting off the rain, (id
now states that Marceau will not be offered to testify as to
Plaintiff's impaired vision or that Plaintiff could have
avoided the Collision. Accordingly, Plaintiffs Motion is
denied as moot with respect to these two opinions. H&F
still intends to offer Marceau to testify that Plaintiff
improperly activated and locked his rear brake alone,
resulting in a loss of control prior to impact.
argues that Marceau's testimony is “unsupported by
any calculation, precise measurement, or collected data[,
]” and that it is contradicted by relevant scientific
literature. (Mot. at 4). To support his argument, Plaintiff
notes that, when deposed, Marceau admitted he did not perform
any testing or calculations to support his conclusions, and
he admitted he did not consult any specific authority to form
his opinions. (Id at 3 (citing Marceau Dep.
[182.2])). Plaintiff further argues that Marceau's
ignores obvious alternative explanations, and that his
testimony would not be helpful to the jury.
notes that Marceau has more than two decades of experience in
civil and traffic engineering and accident reconstruction.
(See ; [195.1] (“Marceau Decl.”).
He obtained a Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering from
North Carolina State University in 1994 and a Master of
Science in Civil Engineering from North Carolina State
University in 1995. (Marceau Decl. ¶ 2). He is a
Registered Professional Engineer in four states; North
Carolina, Virginia, South Carolina, and Georgia.
(Id.) He is a Certified Traffic Signal Technician
and Signal Inspector and wrote, among other publications, a
book titled Accident Reconstruction at Traffic Signal
Intersections. (Id.). Marceau instructs various
professionals on topics including traffic accident
investigation, reconstruction involving traffic control
devices, and human factors within the roadway, driving, and
pedestrian environments. (Id.). He is a
court-qualified expert in motorcycle operations, and he has
operated motorcycles for many years. (Id.). He also
has personal experience, during training and non-training
operations, with motorcycle skidding on wet and dry paved and
non-paved surfaces, and has participated in motorcycle crash
Declaration, Marceau explains that, based upon his education,
training, knowledge, and expertise as a civil and forensic
engineer, accident investigator, and accident
reconstructionist, he is familiar with the principles and
methodology accepted in the profession and he has used those
principles and methodologies in preparing his opinions this
case. (Marceau Decl. ¶ 3). Marceau bases his opinion
that Plaintiff improperly activated and locked his rear brake
alone, resulting in a loss of control prior to impact on the
following: (1) tire marks showing skidding on the rear tire,
not the front tire (2) the lack of damage to the H&F
truck's grill; and (3) the testimony of witness LuAnn
Downes that she heard skidding. Based on this evidence,
Marceau explains the methodology he used to support his
opinion that a locking rear tire alone will cause a
motorcycle to “go down.” (See  at
13-18). His methodology “is based on a combination of
physical evidence and physics[, ]” including
Newton's first law of motion. (Marceau Decl. ¶ 4).
the Federal Rules of Evidence, expert testimony is admissible
if: (1) the expert is qualified to testify regarding the
subject matter of her testimony; (2) the methodology that the
expert used to reach his or her conclusions is sufficiently
reliable; and (3) the expert's testimony will assist the
trier of fact in understanding the evidence or in determining
a fact at issue. United States v. Scott, 403 F.
App'x 392, ...