Mandate Issued: 05/09/2018
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TULSA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA HONORABLE
CAROLINE E. WALL, TRIAL JUDGE.
L. Rode, David C. Bean, RODE LAW FIRM, P.L.L.C., Tulsa,
Oklahoma, for Plaintiff/Appellant.
Jennifer D. Ary, FRANDEN/FARRIS/QUILLIN GOODNIGHT䓠䑅,
Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Defendants/Appellees.
L. GOODMAN, JUDGE
Plaintiff Derrick Black appeals the trial court's March
22, 2016, Journal Entry of Judgment, entered on a jury
verdict, in Plaintiff's vehicle negligence case. Based on
our review of the facts and applicable law, we affirm the
Plaintiff was severely injured on March 6, 2009, in a
single-vehicle, non-contact accident, when he struck a curb
while riding his motorcycle. He alleged he was forced to take
evasive action when a truck, driven by Defendant Childs, and
owned by Defendants Ferrellgas, Inc. and Ferrellgas, L.P.,
entered his lane from a cross street in order to make a left
turn.  Plaintiff sued Defendants, alleging
A key disputed fact, which forms the basis of this appeal, is
whether Defendant Childs, who was operating the Ferrellgas
truck, had actually entered the intersection, causing
Plaintiff to take evasive action. Plaintiff testified he did,
and Childs testified he did not.
What is undisputed is that Childs exited an expressway and
had driven to the end of the off ramp, stopping at a stop
sign, with the intention of turning left. The off ramp had a
single right turn lane and two left turn lanes. Childs
stopped his truck in the left lane of the double left turn
lanes. What happened next is in dispute.
Plaintiff and his motorcycle approached the intersection from
Defendant Childs' left, at a disputed rate of speed.
Childs testified he first stopped at the wide, painted white
stop lines, just before the two narrower, white crosswalk
lines. He testified he moved his truck forward from the wide
white line to the narrower pedestrian line, and stopped once
again. Not seeing Plaintiff approaching because of the
curvature of the road, Child's wrote a statement at the
scene of the accident at the request of the investigating
officer in which he stated:
I was turning left from left hand left turn lane,
inter-section was clear until motorcycle passed east bound on
Apache stricking [ sic ] meadian [ sic ]
becomeing [ sic ] airborn [ sic ] at high
rate of speed. When motorcycle approach [ sic ] from
my left I stopped.... 
In a sworn deposition taken 18 months later and again at
trial, Childs stated that he had: "stopped behind the
first white line...."  Then, "I proceeded
to the crosswalk once I knew it was clear and stopped
there... to look again to make sure there wasn't any
further traffic."  Childs continues, "So I pulled
up to the line of the crosswalk to look left and back to the
right and then looked left again... and that's when I saw
the motorcycle approaching."  Childs concluded,
"When I stated that I had pulled out, I did not specify
[to the investigating officer] how far I had pulled out. I
had proceeded from the broad white line to the edge of the
crosswalk to make sure that the intersection was still clear
from both directions." 
It was at this point that Plaintiff, riding the motorcycle,
encountered the intersection. He testified:
A All I can remember is seeing something moving from that
stop sign as I was coming out from under that highway, and...
all I can remember is just seeing something white. That's
all I can remember.
Q Was it in your lane?
A Yes. 
There was no collision between the motorcycle and the
Ferrellgas truck, but Plaintiff lost control of the
motorcycle and crashed into a curb, suffering severe
injuries. Whether the truck moved into the intersection
became the focus of much testimony.
Plaintiff cross-examined Childs extensively regarding the
apparent contradiction between Childs' written statement
and his testimony at trial regarding whether Childs'
vehicle was moving into the intersection or merely moving up
to the curb before turning.
Defendant's expert, Reynolds, is an expert in accident
reconstruction. However, Plaintiff sought to disqualify
Reynolds from testifying as an expert for the reason that the
facts chosen by Reynolds, upon which he based his expert
analysis, consisted of the "self-serving testimony
provided by Childs at his deposition nearly eighteen months
after the collision for which this testimony was
contradictory to Childs' hand written statement at the
scene of the collision as well as [Plaintiff's] trial
At trial, Reynolds was asked:
Q Why did you put Mr. Childs' vehicle starting right
A This is the position taken from his deposition that he
stopped at the stop bar.... 
Q Have you been presented or provided Mr. Childs'
statement he gave to the police?
A Yes, I have.
Q Does it in that statement state where he stopped?
A I don't believe--no, it does not.
Q So have you been provided his trial testimony?
A Yes, I have. 
Q  You've read Mr. Childs' trial deposition,
A The trial transcript?