Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Purvis v. Bryant

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Beaufort Division

December 17, 2018

TIFFANY PURVIS, Plaintiff,
v.
MARVIN BRYANT, individually and as an employee/agent of Royal Tanklines, and 807999 ONTARIO LTD, d/b/a Royal Tanklines, Defendants.

          ORDER

          DAVID C. NORTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         The following matter is before the court on plaintiff Tiffany Purvis's (“Purvis”) motion to exclude defendants' expert, ECF No. 26; defendants Marvin Bryant (“Bryant”) and 807999 Ontario Ltd's, doing business as Royal Tanklines (“Royal Tanklines”), (collectively, “defendants”) motion to compel Purvis's medical authorizations, ECF No. 27; and defendants' motion to compel or exclude Purvis's expert, ECF No. 29. For the reasons set forth below, the court denies Purvis's motion to exclude defendants' expert, denies defendants' motion to compel or exclude Purvis's expert, and finds moot defendant's motion to compel medical authorizations.

         I. BACKGROUND

         This case arises out of a car accident. On April 11, 2015, Purvis was driving northbound in the second to right-hand lane of Interstate 95. Bryant was driving a tractor trailer alongside Purvis in the right-hand lane of Interstate 95. Bryant is employed by Royal Tanklines. Purvis alleges that Bryant drove into Purvis's lane of traffic, striking Purvis's car and causing her car to careen into a ditch. Purvis was injured and trapped in her car for a period of time before emergency personnel could rescue her.

         Purvis filed suit on April 4, 2017 in the Court of Common Pleas for Jasper County, South Carolina, alleging that Bryant was negligent in operating the tractor trailer and that Royal Tanklines failed to properly train Byrant and negligently entrusted the tractor trailer with him. Defendants removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction on June 12, 2017. On September 11, 2018, Purvis filed a motion to exclude defendants' expert witness, ECF No. 26, to which defendants responded, ECF No. 28. Then defendants filed a motion to compel Purvis's medical authorizations on September 21, 2018, ECF No. 27. Purvis provided the authorizations on September 28, 2018, making the motion moot. Defendants also filed a motion to compel the deposition of Purvis's expert or to exclude Purvis's expert on October 2, 2018, ECF No. 29, to which Purvis responded, ECF No. 33, and defendants replied, ECF No. 34. The motions to exclude the experts are ripe for review.

         II. DISCUSSION

         A. Motion to Exclude Defendants' Expert

         Purvis seeks to exclude the opinion of defendants' expert, G. Wayne Maltry (“Maltry”). Maltry works in accident reconstruction and concluded that Purvis caused the collision between Purvis and Bryant. Purvis argues that Maltry did not review all of the relevant evidence before coming to his opinion, and as such his opinion was based on insufficient facts and formed through unreliable principles and methods. Specifically, Purvis argues Maltry's opinion should be excluded because (1) Maltry did not consider Purvis's deposition testimony or Bryant's driver repair, pre-inspection or post-inspection reports when forming his causation opinion; (2) Maltry did not consider Bryant's reports when forming his standard of care opinion; and (3) defendants' counsel did not provide Maltry with the deposition testimony or reports, making Maltry a “mouthpiece of a filtered version of events.” ECF No. 26 at 10. In response, defendants explain that in his deposition, Maltry stated that he finds physical evidence to be more reliable than testimony, and based on the physical evidence and his mathematical calculations, the only way he could reconstruct the accident was in the manner he described in his report, with Purvis being the cause. Defendants also note that Maltry explained why reviewing Bryant's reports would likely not have affected his opinion.

         Federal Rule of Evidence 702 provides:

A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if:
(a) the expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;
(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
(c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and
(d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.