Jensen et al v. Crete Carrier et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, NORTHERN DIVISION
BRANDON JENSEN and REBECCA
JENSEN,
Plaintiffs, 	MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
TERMINATING AS MOOT IN PART
THREE MOTIONS IN LIMINE
CONCERNING EXPERT TESTIMONY
OF ALAN ASAY
v.
Case No. 1:23-cv-00105-TC-JCB
CRETE CARRIER CORPORATION and
MICHAEL BEALE,
Defendants.
Judge Tena Campbell
Magistrate Judge Jared C. Bennett
Before the court are three motions in limine concerning the testimony of the Defendants’
accident reconstruction expert, Alan Asay. First, Plaintiffs Brandon Jensen and Rebecca Jensen
move to exclude speculative testimony about cellphone use. (ECF No. 47.) Second, the
Plaintiffs move to exclude certain testimony about the Utah Drivers Handbook. (ECF No. 48.)
Finally, the Plaintiffs move to exclude testimony about whether Mr. Jensen’s injuries would have
been worse if the semi-truck had been moving when he collided with it. (ECF No. 49.)
In these motions, the Plaintiffs also object to similar testimony from the Defendants’
human factors expert, Dr. Jubal Hamernik. But because the Defendants will not call Dr.
Hamernik as a witness (see Min. Entry, Nov. 14, 2025, ECF No. 152), the motions as they relate
to Dr. Hamernik’s testimony are moot.
The court elected to forego an examination of Mr. Asay outside the presence of the jury
Case 1:23-cv-00105-TC-JCB Document 160 Filed 11/18/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 3

2
after confirming with the parties that his testimony would either avoid the contested topics or
would abide by the court’s preliminary ruling on those issues. (See Min. Entry, Nov. 17, 2025,
ECF No. 159; Prelim. Ruling Mots. Limine, Oct. 31, 2025, ECF No. 125.) Specifically, counsel
for the defense noted that Mr. Asay would not opine on the Utah Driver Handbook or discuss
whether Mr. Jensen’s injuries might have been worse if the truck had been moving. The court
agrees that such testimony would not be appropriate and finds that its preliminary ruling stands.
(See ECF No. 125 at 2.) The jurors may evaluate the guidance provided by the Utah Driver
Handbook without the aid of an expert. And any speculation about what might have happened to
Mr. Jensen had he hit a moving truck is not the product of reliable principles and methods. See
Fed. R. Evid. 702.
Finally, the court found that Mr. Asay could testify that he believed Mr. Jensen must have
been distracted based on his accident simulation but should avoid speculation that Mr. Jensen’s
cell phone was the source of the distraction. The jurors may decide whether Mr. Jensen was
using a cell phone based on the other evidence presented in the case and expert testimony would
not aid the trier of fact on this issue.
ORDER
For the reasons stated above, the court ORDERS as follows:
1. 	The Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Speculative Evidence about
Cellphone Use (ECF No. 47) is GRANTED IN PART as it relates to the testimony of Mr. Asay
and TERMINATED AS MOOT IN PART as it relates to the testimony of Dr. Hamernik.
2. 	The Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Certain Opinions Related to the Utah
Driver Handbook (ECF No. 48) is GRANTED IN PART as it relates to the testimony of Mr.
Asay and TERMINATED AS MOOT IN PART as it relates to the testimony of Dr. Hamernik.
Case 1:23-cv-00105-TC-JCB Document 160 Filed 11/18/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 3

3
3. 	The Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Speculative Evidence of What May
Have Happened to Brandon Jensen if Defendant Michael Beale Did Not Stop and Block Mr.
Jensen’s Lane of Travel (ECF No. 49) is GRANTED IN PART as it relates to the testimony of
Mr. Asay and TERMINATED AS MOOT IN PART as it relates to the testimony of Dr.
Hamernik.
DATED this 18th day of November, 2025.
BY THE COURT:
_____________________
Tena Campbell
United States District Judge
Case 1:23-cv-00105-TC-JCB Document 160 Filed 11/18/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 3