Dr. Metrist, could you please tell the court why you are here today?
What is your occupation?
How long have you been working in the field?
Now, please tell us more about your education. I understand that you earned a Ph.D. in meteorology and BA in physics and mathematics. How does your education relate to the job you do in this type of data analysis?
What other relevant training have you received?
Does this include research and analysis on how auto accidents and the effect fog relate to one another?
How does your current or previous job relate to what you are asked to analyze for the present case?
On your job, have you conducted the same kind of research and provided analysis on it before? If …show more content…
It is about whether the statute is constitutionally valid under the Dormant Commercial Clause (DCC). The State argues that all trucks must be equipped with certain types of protective devices to promote safety on the roads. The cost of the safety devices is approximately $1195 per truck. The Plaintiff, BBT, alone owns 89 trucks in its fleet. The regulation like this would impose a significant financial burden on the company like BBT as well as would put a hindrance on the trucking industry …show more content…
Further, the state fails to substantiate that the means serves the end because the devices did not show material improvement in reducing risks of commercial truck accidents. Accordingly, the State fails to meet its burden of proving that the statute serves the State’s purpose to create a safer road system. Since the State fails to meet this requirement, there is no need to determine whether or not reasonable and less discriminatory alternatives are available. Consequently, the State statute violates the DCC and it should be