In a personal injury action, a plaintiff appealed from the trial court’s order granting summary judgment to the defendants, asserting that the trial court erred by striking portions of his expert witness’ affidavit on the grounds that the issues raised in it weren’t beyond the understanding of the average juror.
Product liability, negligent training, intentional destruction and fraudulent concealment of crucial records, and falsification of records
CSX stores shipping containers for drivers to pick up and deliver to vendors, and it operates facilities in Fairburn and Austell, Georgia. CSX’s Fairburn facility uses a lift procedure where a driver or “drayman” positions their tractor-trailer and chassis in a designated area. Then, a manually or electronically operated crane loads the container onto the chassis. The drayman is responsible for opening the “twist locks” before the container is loaded onto the chassis and then making sure that the container is secured by closing the locks. If the locks are closed during the loading process, the container won’t sit properly on the chassis. If a driver has difficulty closing a twist lock, they hit the locks with a hammer to secure the container to the chassis.
In 2021, the plaintiff was employed as an intermodal truck driver. On January 7, 2021, he was sent to CSX’s Fairburn facility to get a 43,000-pound shipping container. He retrieved a chassis, inspected it to make sure it was in working condition, inspected the twist locks to make certain they opened and closed properly, connected the chassis to his trailer, and went to the loading area for the container to be loaded onto the chassis. While waiting for the container to be loaded, the plaintiff again inspected the chassis to ensure it functioned properly. A video of the accident showed that after the crane operator loaded the container onto the chassis, there was a noticeable gap on the right passenger rear-side of the trailer. But the plaintiff said he didn’t see a gap between the container and the chassis. According to the plaintiff, although the container was initially seated properly on the chassis, the crane apparently malfunctioned, and the container no longer sat properly on the chassis. He also believed that the crane operator didn’t properly load the container onto the chassis.
The plaintiff then started to secure the container onto the chassis. He walked to the right rear side of the trailer and used a hammer to close a twist lock so the container would sit properly onto the chassis. While trying to close the twist lock with the hammer, he put his left hand in the gap between the container and the chassis. The container then fell on his hand and crushed two of his fingers, which were later amputated. The plaintiff said that he didn’t realize that he’d placed his hand in the gap and admitted that it wasn’t reasonable for someone to put their hand in the gap.
The plaintiff filed suit, asserting claims for negligence, product liability, negligent training, intentional destruction and fraudulent concealment of crucial records, and falsification of records. CSX filed a motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s negligence and products liability claims, arguing that the plaintiff’s actions were the proximate cause of his injuries, he could have avoided his injuries, and it didn’t design or manufacture the chassis, container, twist lock, or crane. The plaintiff opposed the motion and submitted an affidavit from a transportation and traffic engineering expert, in which he opined, among other things, that:
- All four twist locks were open at the time the crane operator landed the container on the chassis right before the plaintiff lost his fingers;
- It was the crane operator’s responsibility to position a container properly onto the container chassis. If the crane operator doesn’t position the container properly onto the container chassis, it’s the crane operator’s responsibility to raise the container and place it in the proper position.
- When a remote crane operator suspects a container isn’t properly seated onto the container chassis, the industry standard of care demands both the resetting of the container and ensuring that the container is properly seated pursuant to the crane operating manual and at the same time to warn the chassis driver not to try to lock the container in by hand.
- The failure of the crane operator to follow the crane operating manual was a deviation from the industry standard of care, and the principal causation for the plaintiff’s loss of his fingers.
- CSX failed to properly control and supervise the loading of a container onto the chassis.
- CSX failed to perform formal safety audits focused on both the unsafe conditions and unsafe work practices at the facility.
- CSX failed to prevent the common practice of using a hammer to correct a chassis loading defect.
- To a reasonable degree of engineering certainty, if CSX and the crane operator didn’t deviate from the standard of care, the plaintiff wouldn’t have had his fingers crushed and amputated.
- The plaintiff didn’t breach the standard of care of a reasonable drayman.
The defendants filed two motions to strike certain paragraphs from the expert’s affidavit, arguing that those paragraphs didn’t contain any scientific or specialized knowledge that would aid a jury in understanding the issues. The trial court agreed and granted the motion to strike, determining that the matters in those paragraphs weren’t beyond the understanding of the average juror. The trial court also granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment.
The trial court concluded that, based on the video of the incident and the plaintiff’s deposition that the plaintiff’s actions of placing his hand in the gap and not keeping watch of the container were the sole proximate cause of his injuries. The court also concluded that, even if there was some degree of negligence on the part of the defendants, the plaintiff could have avoided the consequences, and thus his negligence exceeded any supposed negligence of the defendants.
The testimony of a qualified expert is admissible if:
Judge Jeff Davis of the Georgia Court of Appeals wrote in his opinion that it’s the role of the trial court to act as a gatekeeper of expert testimony, and the appellate court will give broad deference to the trial court to fulfill this role. Rule 702 concerns the admissibility of opinion testimony by expert witnesses in civil and criminal cases. Under this statute, the testimony of a qualified expert is admissible if:
- 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;
- The testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data;
- The testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and
- The expert reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.
In determining the admissibility of expert testimony under Rule 702, a trial court must conduct a three-part inquiry where the court considers whether:
- The expert is qualified to testify competently regarding the matters he intends to address;
- The methodology by which the expert reaches his conclusions is sufficiently reliable as determined by the sort of inquiry mandated in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (U.S. 1993); and
- The testimony assists the trier of fact, through the application of scientific, technical, or specialized expertise, to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.
In explaining the third prong of the inquiry, Judge Davis noted that the Eleventh Circuit has explained that “expert testimony is admissible if it concerns matters that are beyond the understanding of the average lay person.”
In light of the trial court’s gatekeeper role and the deference that’s given to trial courts to perform its role, Judge Davis said that the Court of Appeals couldn’t say that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding certain paragraphs of the expert’s affidavit.
In sum, although the Court was mindful of the unfortunate circumstances of this case, it affirmed the trial court’s order excluding portions of the expert testimony and granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The judgment was affirmed. Ball v. CSX Intermodal Terminals, Inc., 2025 Ga. App. LEXIS 481, 2025 LX 414994, 2025 WL 3000965 (Ga. App. October 27, 2025).
Contact an experienced Atlanta personal injury lawyer
Contact an experienced Atlanta personal injury lawyer Atlanta residents trust and know will beat the experts hired by defense law firms. When it comes to hired guns, we’re happy to take them on. We offer free consultations to all prospective clients.
Contact an Atlanta personal injury attorney at Tobin Injury Law 24 hours a day, 7 days a week by calling 404-JUSTICE (404-587-8423).