Expert Witness Blog

In the landmark case of Oberdorf v. Amazon.com Inc., 3rd Cir. 2025, the role of the Consumer Products Expert Witness proved pivotal in the evolving landscape of online marketplace liability. This case addressed whether Amazon could be held strictly liable as a “seller” for injuries caused by a defective product sold by a third-party vendor through its platform, with expert testimony central to the court’s analysis of product safety, warnings, and causation.

Background and Facts

Plaintiff Heather Oberdorf purchased a retractable dog leash and collar from a third-party vendor on Amazon.com. While walking her dog, the collar’s D-ring failed, causing the leash to snap back and strike Oberdorf in the face, resulting in permanent blindness in her left eye. Oberdorf sued Amazon, asserting claims for strict products liability and negligence, alleging that the product was defectively designed and lacked adequate warnings regarding foreseeable hazards.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’ decision in Sexton v. State, 93 S.W.3d 96 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002), is a leading authority on the reliability of Firearms & Ballistics Expert Witness testimony, particularly for novel forensic techniques. The court applied a Daubert-style analysis to exclude magazine-mark identification evidence as insufficiently reliable for criminal proceedings.

Background and Parties

The defendant, Sexton, was prosecuted for aggravated assault following a shooting incident in Bexar County, Texas. The State sought to link Sexton to the shooting through forensic comparison of unfired cartridges recovered from his possession with fired cartridge casings recovered from the scene. The connection depended on a relatively novel forensic technique: identifying impressions left on cartridges by the lips of a magazine, which the State argued were as distinctive as fingerprint or toolmark evidence.

In the recent data breach litigation of Savidge et al v. Pharm-Save, Inc. et al, W.D. Ky. 2023, the role of the Cybersecurity Expert Witness was pivotal in addressing complex questions of negligence and causation following a significant compromise of employee data. This case provides a clear illustration of how courts scrutinize the reliability and admissibility of expert testimony in cybersecurity matters.

Background and Parties

Plaintiffs Andrea Savidge and Beth Lynch, both former employees of Pharm-Save, Inc., initiated suit after a data breach resulted in the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive personal information. The breach occurred when cybercriminals, posing as company executives, deceived Pharm-Save employees into releasing confidential data. Plaintiffs alleged that Pharm-Save failed to implement adequate cybersecurity protocols, thereby enabling the breach and exposing employees to risk.

In the recent case of Scottsdale Insurance Co. v. Columbia Insurance Group, Inc, 7th Cir. 2024, the role of the Construction Site Expert Witness was central to the court’s analysis of liability and insurance coverage following a serious workplace accident on a Chicago construction site.

Background and Facts

TDH Mechanical, Inc. contracted to provide HVAC services at a multi-story construction project in Chicago. The contract required TDH to indemnify Rockwell, the property owner, and to provide liability insurance naming Rockwell and Prairie Management as additional insureds. During ongoing construction, a TDH employee, Guzman, fell 22 feet through an unguarded opening on the second floor, suffering severe injuries. Guzman initiated a lawsuit against Rockwell, Prairie, and other parties, alleging negligence in site safety management. Several defendants filed third-party complaints against TDH for contribution, seeking to allocate responsibility for the accident.

In the recent and highly consequential case of Thomson Reuters Enter. Ctr. GMBH v. Ross Intelligence Inc., D. Del. 2025, the court’s analysis and reliance on a Copyrights Expert Witness played a pivotal role in resolving complex questions at the intersection of artificial intelligence and copyright law. This case stands as a touchstone for the evolving legal landscape surrounding the use of copyrighted material in AI training and the admissibility and weight of expert testimony in such disputes.

Background and Parties

Thomson Reuters, the publisher of the Westlaw legal research platform, brought suit against Ross Intelligence, a developer of AI-powered legal research tools. The core allegation was that Ross had copied thousands of Westlaw’s proprietary headnotes—editorial summaries of case law decisions—to train and validate its AI system, thereby infringing Thomson Reuters’ copyrights. Ross asserted multiple defenses, including fair use, arguing that its use was transformative and did not harm the market for Westlaw’s products.

In the recent appellate decision of United States v. Borino, 5th Cir. 2023, the role of the White Collar Crime Expert Witness was pivotal in the court’s analysis of causation, loss calculation, and the application of the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA) in a complex fraud prosecution.

Background and Parties

Joseph Anthony Borino was indicted in connection with a multi-million dollar wire fraud scheme orchestrated by his employer, Denis Joachim, and co-conspirator Donna Joachim. The fraudulent enterprise involved the misappropriation of client funds through a tax resolution business, resulting in substantial losses to numerous victims. Borino, initially charged with conspiracy to defraud the IRS, making false statements, and wire fraud, ultimately pleaded guilty to misprision of a felony—specifically, concealing the ongoing wire fraud.

In the pivotal case of Waak v. Rodriguez, Texas Supreme Court 2020, the role of the Livestock Expert Witness was central to the court’s analysis of liability under the Texas Farm Animal Activity Act (the “Act”) and the broader question of rancher responsibility for livestock-related injuries.

Background and Facts

The case arose after Raul Zuniga, a full-time ranch hand employed by Conway and Marlene Waak, was fatally injured while working cattle on the Waak ranch. Zuniga’s duties included herding, feeding, and general care of livestock. During a routine cattle-moving operation, Zuniga was trampled, resulting in his death. His family brought wrongful death and survival claims against the Waaks, alleging negligence in ranch operations and livestock handling.

The role of a 3D Laser Scanning Expert Witness has become increasingly pivotal in modern litigation, especially in cases involving accident reconstruction and crime scene analysis. In a recent case, the expert’s testimony was instrumental in establishing the sequence of events and influencing the jury’s understanding of the facts.

Background and Facts

The case arose from a tragic incident at a gas station in Marietta, Cobb County, Georgia. Early one Sunday morning, four teenagers initiated a violent altercation with a man. The confrontation escalated as the teenagers punched and kicked the victim, ultimately pushing him into traffic. The man was left unconscious in the roadway, where he was struck by a passing vehicle and later died from his injuries. The prosecution charged the teenagers with murder, and the case proceeded to trial, hinging on the precise reconstruction of the events leading to the victim’s death.

Background and Facts

Estate of Olsen v. Agtegra Cooperative, South Dakota Supreme Court 2023 arose from a dispute over alleged herbicide damage to ponderosa pine trees on the Olsen family’s property in Spink County, South Dakota. In October 2014, while guiding a hunting party, the Olsens’ son observed a crop duster spraying herbicide near their land. The Olsens subsequently claimed that the herbicide application caused significant damage and death to their trees. They filed suit against Agtegra Cooperative and related defendants, alleging various causes of action including trespass, statutory and common law nuisance, promissory estoppel, and civil conspiracy.

Parties

The United States Supreme Court’s decision in Ensign v. Pennsylvania, 227 U.S. 592 (1913) stands as a foundational case examining the admissibility and scope of testimony provided by a Bankruptcy Expert Witness in criminal proceedings arising from bankruptcy matters. This case provides critical guidance on the intersection of expert analysis, bankruptcy records, and constitutional protections against self-incrimination.

Background and Facts

The plaintiffs in error, Ensign and his business partner, operated as private bankers in North East, Pennsylvania. On February 12, 1908, they accepted a deposit of $1,000 from the prosecuting witness. Merely days later, they closed their banking house and made an assignment for the benefit of creditors, ultimately leading to involuntary bankruptcy proceedings. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania indicted the bankers under a statute prohibiting insolvent bankers from accepting deposits, with the February 12 deposit forming the basis of the criminal charge.