Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Godchaux v. Peerless Insurance Co.

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Decided June 4, 2014No. 13-1083Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partConery, J.

_JjI agree with the majority’s ultimate holding that the testimony of Dr. Bain should have been excluded. I would exclude his testimony based on a finding that the defendants have not established that there is an accepted field of expertise in “causation analysis.” While Dr. Bain may have been qualified as an expert in “biome-chanics” and “accident reconstruction,” the record before us does not support that he performed any tests, examined the specific vehicles, or performed or reviewed any “crash tests” specific to this case. I agree that Dr. Bain’s opinion should have been excluded on that…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Brewer v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 2010
  2. Guillory v. SaucierLouisiana Court of Appeal · 2011

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API