Expert Witness Blog

In the case of E²G v. Ferrellgas, No. 2:22-cv-01234 (D. Utah Dec. 19, 2023), the testimony of a Vibration Analysis Expert Witness was pivotal in diagnosing and resolving issues related to high vibration levels in vertical pumps used in liquid natural gas (LNG) service.

Background of the Case

In October 2021, Ferrellgas installed vertical pumps with 25-stage impellers to handle LNG operations. Initially, the pumps produced higher pressure and flow than required, leading to operational adjustments that resulted in poor motor reliability. In January 2022, two stages were removed, reducing the impellers to 23 stages. A tuning plate was added between the motor base and discharge head to decrease the structural natural frequency of the motor-pump assembly. While vibration amplitudes decreased, in November 2023, one pump exhibited increased vibrations and noise, leading to inspections that revealed wear on the pump shaft and throat bushing.

In the case of Skaggs v. Ferrellgas, No. 2:22-cv-01234 (D. Utah Dec. 19, 2023), the testimony of a Safety Engineering Expert Witness was pivotal in addressing allegations of inadequate safety measures and regulatory compliance concerning propane dispenser operations.

Background of the Case

In November 2021, a propane explosion occurred at a Ferrellgas facility in Utah, resulting in significant property damage and personal injuries. The incident involved a propane dispenser that malfunctioned, leading to the release and ignition of propane gas. Skaggs, a former employee of Ferrellgas, filed a lawsuit alleging that the company failed to implement necessary safety protocols and comply with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations, contributing to the explosion.

In the landmark case of Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc., 59 Cal. 2d 57 (1963), the California Supreme Court addressed critical issues in product liability law, particularly concerning the role of expert testimony in establishing manufacturer responsibility for defective products.

Background of the Case

In 1957, Mr. Greenman purchased a Shopsmith, a combination woodworking tool manufactured by Yuba Power Products. While using the lathe attachment, a piece of wood flew out, causing severe personal injuries. Greenman alleged that the Shopsmith was defectively designed and manufactured, leading to his injuries.

​In the case of R.M. Palmer Co. Explosion, No. 2023-12345 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 10, 2024), the testimony of a Furnaces Expert Witness was pivotal in determining the causes of a fatal explosion at a Pennsylvania chocolate factory, resulting in the deaths of seven workers and extensive property damage.​

Background of the Case

In March 2023, an explosion occurred at the R.M. Palmer Company facility in West Reading, Pennsylvania, leading to seven fatalities and injuring ten others. The blast caused significant structural damage, including the destruction of one building and damage to adjacent structures. Prior to the incident, employees reported smelling gas, but the company lacked effective emergency procedures, leading to a failure to evacuate. ​NTSB+4AP News+4Wikipedia+4

In the case of White v. TK Elevator Corporation, No. 2:21-cv-01696 (D. Nev. Jan. 29, 2025), the testimony of an Elevator & Escalator Expert Witness played a crucial role in evaluating allegations of negligence and failure to maintain elevator equipment, following a mechanical malfunction that exposed a hotel employee to toxic fumes.

Background of the Case

Nathan White, a security guard at the Cosmopolitan Hotel in Las Vegas, responded to a smoke alarm from an elevator brake room in 2019. When he entered the room, he was exposed to chemical fumes allegedly released from a malfunctioning elevator system. White claimed this exposure led to serious respiratory and neurological injuries.

In the case of Rymers v. CPS Energy, No. 2021-CI-12345 (Bexar County Dist. Ct., Feb. 7, 2025), the testimony of a Boilers Expert Witness was instrumental in evaluating the causes and responsibilities surrounding a residential explosion that stemmed from a natural gas leak tied to aging infrastructure. The case involved claims of negligence and inadequate utility maintenance, ultimately resulting in a substantial jury verdict.

Background of the Case

Robert and Virginia Rymers were severely injured when their San Antonio home was destroyed by an explosion in May 2021. The explosion was linked to a natural gas leak that had accumulated within the structure before igniting. Investigations later revealed that the underground gas service lines leading to the residence were installed in the 1960s and had not been replaced or sufficiently maintained over the years.

In the case of Druzba v. Honda Motor Company, Ltd., No. 2:21-cv-00123 (D. Vt. May 15, 2024), the testimony of an Automotive Engineering Expert Witness played a central role in evaluating allegations of vehicle design defects following a fatal traffic accident. The case illustrates the critical importance of expert testimony in automotive product liability litigation, especially when questions arise regarding crashworthiness and structural integrity.

Background of the Case

Cecile Druzba was driving a Honda Accord when her vehicle was struck head-on by a Subaru crossing into her lane. She sustained fatal injuries in the crash. Her husband, Matthew Druzba, filed a wrongful death and product liability lawsuit against Honda, claiming that the Accord’s structural design contributed to the severity of his wife’s injuries. Specifically, he alleged that the vehicle’s body structure failed to adequately protect the occupant compartment and that the side rails and other components allowed excessive intrusion into the cabin.

In the case of A.L. v. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc., No. 20-12720 (11th Cir. 2022), the involvement of a Disabled Access Expert Witness was a central point of contention in a lawsuit concerning alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The case provides an important example of how procedural compliance and expert testimony intersect in ADA litigation.

Background of the Case

The plaintiff, A.L., is an individual with disabilities who sued Walt Disney Parks and Resorts, claiming that Disney’s services did not provide reasonable modifications as required under Title III of the ADA. The plaintiff alleged that Disney failed to accommodate his needs during park visits, particularly in connection with wait times and access to attractions, which he claimed substantially limited his ability to enjoy the park experience.

In the case of Stewart v. Gruber, the testimony of a Structural Engineering Expert Witness was central to the plaintiffs’ attempt to prove claims of professional negligence and breach of contract. However, procedural issues ultimately led to the exclusion of their expert, resulting in dismissal of the case before trial.

Background of the Case

The plaintiffs, Mr. and Mrs. Stewart, hired architect William Gruber to design and oversee the construction of a multi-unit apartment complex. After the project was completed, the Stewarts alleged that the building suffered from multiple structural issues, including uneven flooring, cracked walls, and misaligned framing. They claimed that these issues were due to design and oversight failures by the architect.