Automotive crashworthiness engineer
Expert class library · Product engineering · Plaintiff side
Addresses whether a vehicle's structure, restraints and fuel system protected occupants as well as a reasonable alternative design would have, in roof crush, seatback, door, underride and post-crash fire claims. Courts look hard at whether the proposed alternative design was ever built or tested and whether the expert can show it would have prevented the injury in this crash.
Ask this expertPreview
A preview of this class of expert, built from the public rulings on this page. Ask how the testimony is built, attacked or defended. 20 questions free with a firm email.
What this expert is retained to answer
- What specific alternative design would have reduced or prevented the occupant's injuries in this crash, and was it available when the vehicle was made?
- Has the proposed design been built, crash tested or used in production by any manufacturer, or does it exist only on paper or in a computer model?
- What evidence shows the defect actually caused the injury here, for example how the fuel tank was breached or the occupant compartment intruded?
- Does the opinion rest on engineering testing or on the expert's industry experience, and how does that affect the standard the court applies?
- Was the design developed for the litigation?
Methods
- Crash testing and sled testing
- FMVSS compliance review
- Alternative design analysis
- Occupant survival space analysis
- Fuel system integrity review
How the testimony is attacked
- Untested, litigation-made alternative design. Defendants argue a design no one has built cannot be shown to work. In Wilden v. Laury Transportation the Sixth Circuit upheld exclusion of the plaintiffs' experts on a telescoping trailer side guard because no physical prototype had ever been built or tested and the design was created for the case.
- No reliable link between the defect and this crash. Even a feasible design fails if the expert cannot show it would have mattered. In Sims v. Kia Motors the Fifth Circuit affirmed exclusion of an engineer's fuel tank shield opinion because he could not reliably show the absence of a shield caused the tank to rupture, and of a second engineer's downward displacement theory for lack of supporting data.
- Feasibility and risk-utility gaps. Challengers argue the expert never weighed costs and other dangers of the alternative. In Sims the Fifth Circuit noted that widespread industry use of fuel shields likely showed technical feasibility and that the expert's risk-utility evidence probably met Texas's minimal burden, so causation, not feasibility, decided the case.
- Experience dressed as science. Defendants argue an experience-based defect opinion must meet the full scientific reliability test. In Mazda Motor Corp. v. Hurst the Alabama Supreme Court held that an engineer's opinion that a muffler cut a plastic fuel tank rested on technical knowledge and industry experience, so the scientific prong of the state's Rule 702 did not apply and admission was proper.
- No exemplar testing. Opponents point out that the expert never tested his theory on an exemplar vehicle or part. In Hurst the engineer admitted he had run no tests with an exemplar muffler and fuel tank, but the court treated his comparisons with other vehicles and the evidence of the crash as a sufficient basis for technical testimony.
What the public record shows
A deliberately narrow CourtListener search, crashworthiness AND expert AND (Daubert OR "Rule 702"), returned 17 opinions filed since 2015, as of October 3, 2026; broader searches return more. Three that show how courts handle this class of testimony:
| Outcome | Case | Court | Why |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excluded | Sims v. Kia Motors of America, Inc.839 F.3d 393 | 5th Cir. 2016 | In a post-crash fuel fire case the Fifth Circuit affirmed exclusion of the plaintiffs' two engineers, holding that one's fuel tank displacement theory had no reliable data behind it and the other could not show that his proposed fuel tank shield would have prevented this rupture. |
| Admitted | Mazda Motor Corp. v. Hurst261 So. 3d 167 | Ala. 2017 | The Alabama Supreme Court upheld admission of the plaintiffs' engineer's opinion that the car's fuel system was not crashworthy because a muffler cut the plastic fuel tank, holding the opinion rested on technical experience rather than a scientific theory, so the Daubert prong of the state's Rule 702 did not apply. |
| Excluded | Wilden v. Laury Transportation, LLC901 F.3d 644 | 6th Cir. 2018 | In a trailer underride crashworthiness case the Sixth Circuit affirmed exclusion of the plaintiffs' experts on a telescoping side guard because no physical prototype had ever been built or tested and the design was created for the litigation, which left the claim without proof of a safer alternative. |
Each case links to the free opinion text on CourtListener.
Under amended Rule 702
Since December 1, 2023, Rule 702 says expressly that the party offering an expert must show the court it is more likely than not that the testimony meets each requirement: that it rests on sufficient facts or data, uses reliable methods, and reflects a reliable application of those methods to the case. Questions about the basis of an opinion are no longer automatically matters of weight for the jury. For how the circuits have applied the amendment, see the Rule 702 tracker, which follows each court of appeals; for what that means for preparing or attacking this class of expert, see the guide on amended Rule 702.
Related classes
Guides
Simulating this class on a matter
Supreme Mind simulates a class of expert, never a named individual, on your fact pattern and returns the likely opinion, the ranked cross-examination weaknesses, the Rule 702 attack surface and what it means for settlement. Read how it works, or book a demo.
Last reviewed October 3, 2026. How this page is built: rulings are found by searching court opinions on CourtListener, and each one is read in the opinion before it is summarised here; outcomes are labelled by what the court did with the expert's testimony. No individual expert is named. This page summarises public decisions for orientation and is not legal advice; read the opinion before relying on any ruling.