Expert Witness Blog

In the consolidated fraud and negligence action of THORNTON v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Oklahoma Court of Appeals 2012, the pivotal role of an Automobile Dealerships Expert Witness was central to the court’s analysis of agency, apparent authority, and vicarious liability in the context of dealership operations and manufacturer oversight.

Background and Parties

The plaintiffs, a group of customers, brought suit against Ford Motor Company, alleging fraud and negligence related to their dealings with a Ford-branded dealership. The litigation consolidated seven lawsuits for a non-jury trial. Ford was the sole defendant present, and the trial focused on whether Ford could be held liable for the dealership’s actions under theories of agency and apparent authority.

In the recent case of Thorpe v. Bisignano, No. 24-2214 (7th Cir. 2025), the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit addressed the critical role of the Disability Expert Witness—specifically, a vocational expert—in Social Security disability proceedings. The court’s analysis provides a clear example of how expert testimony is evaluated for reliability and the procedural requirements for challenging such testimony.

Background and Parties

Donald Thorpe, the claimant, sought Social Security disability benefits, alleging that his medical conditions rendered him unable to engage in substantial gainful activity. The Social Security Administration denied his claim, and the matter proceeded to a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). At the hearing, a vocational expert provided testimony regarding Thorpe’s ability to perform work available in the national economy, considering his limitations.

In the product liability case of Tunnell v. Ford Motor Co., 330 F. Supp. 2d 707 (W.D. Va. 2004), the admissibility and reliability of survey evidence presented by a Public Opinion & Survey Research Expert Witness were central to the court’s analysis. The case involved allegations regarding the safety and consumer expectations of Ford vehicles, specifically focusing on battery disconnects and related product features.

Background and Parties

Plaintiff Tunnell brought suit against Ford Motor Company, asserting that certain design features failed to meet reasonable consumer expectations and posed safety risks. To substantiate these claims, Tunnell retained survey experts Pamela Kiecker and Marjorie Adams to conduct consumer expectation surveys. The surveys were intended to provide direct evidence of how typical consumers perceived the safety and functionality of the product at issue.

In the recent case of Turan v Union Modular Homes, LLC, 2025, the New York Appellate Division, Third Department, addressed critical questions of negligence and industry practice in the modular home sector, relying heavily on the testimony and analysis of a Manufactured Homes Expert Witness.

Background and Parties

The plaintiff contracted with Union Modular Homes, LLC (“Union”) to purchase and install a modular home manufactured by Westchester Modular Homes, Inc. (“Westchester”). The contract required Union to construct the foundation and site work, while Westchester was responsible for delivering and setting the modular components. The agreement included a ten-year structural warranty to be transferred to the plaintiff upon full payment.

In the landmark case of United States v. Yates, No. 11-16093 (11th Cir. 2013), the role of the Fish Expert Witness was central to the dispute over the prosecution of a commercial fisherman charged with federal offenses for harvesting and disposing of undersized red grouper in the Gulf of Mexico.

Background and Parties

John L. Yates, captain of a commercial fishing vessel, was prosecuted by the United States government for violating 18 U.S.C. § 2232(a) and 18 U.S.C. § 1519. The charges stemmed from allegations that Yates knowingly harvested red grouper below the minimum legal size and subsequently ordered the disposal of these fish to prevent their seizure by federal authorities. The government asserted that Yates’s actions constituted both the destruction of evidence and obstruction of a federal investigation.

In the recent case of USA v. Suzanne Ellen Kaye, No. 23-11423 (11th Cir. 2024), the admissibility and role of an Internet Expert Witness became a central issue in evaluating alleged criminal threats made via social media platforms. This case provides a clear illustration of the courts’ approach to expert testimony related to internet communications and the application of Daubert standards in federal criminal proceedings.

Background and Facts

Suzanne Ellen Kaye was charged with two counts of transmitting threats in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 875(c), based on videos she posted to Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok. The prosecution alleged that Kaye’s statements in these videos constituted “true threats” not protected by the First Amendment. The case focused on whether the content and context of Kaye’s online communications met the legal threshold for criminal threats.

“

In the pivotal case of Virginia International Gateway v. City of Portsmouth, 829 S.E.2d 199 (Va. 2019), the Supreme Court of Virginia addressed the admissibility and impact of testimony from an International Real Estate Valuation Expert Witness in a high-stakes property tax assessment dispute. This case provides critical guidance on the qualifications required for expert witnesses in real estate valuation, especially in matters involving complex, internationally significant properties.

Background and Parties

Virginia International Gateway, Inc. (VIG), the operator of a major marine terminal in Portsmouth, Virginia, challenged the City of Portsmouth’s 2015–2016 real and personal property tax assessments. VIG contended that the City’s assessments substantially exceeded the actual fair market value of its property, resulting in an unjustified tax burden. VIG filed separate applications to correct both the real estate and personal property assessments, which were consolidated for trial.

“

In the property dispute of White v. LeClerc, Rhode Island Supreme Court 1982, the court’s assessment of damages for unauthorized tree removal hinged on the competing testimony of a qualified Trees Appraisal Expert Witness. This case exemplifies the critical role of expert valuation in determining compensation for lost trees and the judicial scrutiny applied to expert methodologies.

Background and Parties

Plaintiffs, owners of a residential property, alleged that defendant Alfred LeClerc trespassed by directing his agent to remove four mature oak trees from their land. The defendant admitted to ordering the removal as part of landscaping and pool installation. The central issue was the appropriate measure of damages for the loss of these trees, which plaintiffs contended were valuable both for their age and contribution to the property’s aesthetics.

”

In the landmark case of Williams et al. v. Continental Oil Co, 215 F.2d 4 (10th Cir. 1954), the role of the Mineral Interests Expert Witness was pivotal in resolving complex disputes over subsurface oil rights and well trajectory in Seminole County, Oklahoma. This case exemplifies the critical impact of expert testimony in mineral interest litigation, particularly where technical evidence and interpretation are central to the court’s determination.

Background and Facts

In the recent case of Wingate, E. v. McGrath, D., Pennsylvania Superior Court 2025, the Pennsylvania Superior Court addressed the pivotal role of a Business Valuation Expert Witness in a contentious shareholder dispute. The case provides a compelling illustration of how courts evaluate the reliability and admissibility of expert testimony under Pennsylvania law, with direct implications for the outcome of complex business litigation.

Background and Parties

The dispute arose between Elaine Wingate, a minority shareholder, and Daniel McGrath, the majority shareholder and managing officer of a closely held corporation. Wingate alleged that McGrath had engaged in oppressive conduct and sought a judicial determination of the fair value of her shares following her forced removal from the company. Central to the litigation was the accurate valuation of the business, which would determine the amount owed to Wingate for her equity interest.