Expert Witness Blog

In Harris v. FedEx Corporate Services, Inc., 92 F.4th 286 (5th Cir. 2024), the Fifth Circuit issued a major Daubert ruling on Human Resources Expert Witness testimony, slashing one of the largest employment-discrimination verdicts in recent history. The case provides authoritative guidance on the boundaries of admissible HR expert opinion in Title VII litigation.

Background and Parties

Plaintiff Jennifer Harris, a Black sales executive, brought claims of race discrimination and retaliation against FedEx Corporate Services under Title VII. Harris alleged that FedEx subjected her to a hostile work environment, denied her promotion opportunities, and ultimately retaliated against her for raising discrimination concerns. After trial in the Southern District of Texas, the jury returned a verdict awarding Harris approximately $366 million in damages.

A recent case exemplifying the pivotal role of the International Business Expert Witness in federal litigation is Venequip, S.A. v. Caterpillar Inc., adjudicated by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. This matter centered on the intersection of international commercial agreements, foreign legal proceedings, and the scope of U.S. judicial assistance in cross-border discovery requests under 28 U.S.C. § 1782. The court’s analysis and ultimate decision underscore the critical influence of expert testimony in navigating the complexities of international business disputes, particularly where foreign law, business practices, and contractual obligations are at issue.

Background and Parties

Venequip, S.A., a Venezuelan supplier of heavy equipment, maintained a longstanding dealership relationship with Caterpillar Sàrl, the Swiss subsidiary of Illinois-based Caterpillar Inc. The parties’ sales and service agreements contained forum selection and choice-of-law clauses mandating that all disputes be resolved in Swiss courts under Swiss law. In 2019, Caterpillar Sàrl terminated Venequip’s dealership, prompting Venequip to initiate contract litigation in Geneva, Switzerland. To support its claims in the Swiss proceeding, Venequip sought expansive discovery from Caterpillar Inc. and its affiliates in the United States, invoking 28 U.S.C. § 1782, which authorizes U.S. district courts to order discovery for use in foreign tribunals.

A recent appellate decision highlights the pivotal role of the Latches & Fasteners Expert Witness in product liability litigation and the rigorous standards courts apply to such testimony. In the case of Pedro Fidalgo & others v. Columbus McKinnon Corp., 56 Mass. App. Ct. 176 (2002), the Massachusetts Appeals Court addressed the admissibility and sufficiency of expert evidence in a workplace accident involving a foundry hook.

Background and Facts

Pedro Fidalgo, an employee at a Massachusetts foundry, suffered catastrophic injuries while operating a suspended lifting device equipped with a foundry hook manufactured by Columbus McKinnon Corporation. The plaintiffs alleged that the hook was defectively designed because it lacked a latch, which allowed it to slip off a trunnion post during use, causing the accident. They further asserted that the manufacturer failed to provide adequate warnings regarding the dangers of using the hook in suspended lifting operations.

In a recent federal patent litigation, the role of the Licensing Expert Witness proved pivotal in determining the admissibility and weight of damages testimony. The case, Jackson v. NuVasive, Inc., D. Del. 2024, centered on allegations of patent infringement involving complex medical device technology and the calculation of reasonable royalty damages.

Background and Parties

The plaintiff, Jackson, asserted that NuVasive, Inc. infringed several patents related to spinal implant systems. The dispute focused not only on the technical merits of infringement but also on the appropriate measure of damages, specifically the reasonable royalty that would have been negotiated in a hypothetical licensing scenario.

In a recent federal product liability action, the role of a Lifts Expert Witness was central to the court’s analysis of expert admissibility under Rule 702 and Daubert. In Wolff v. Tomahawk Manufacturing, the United States District Court for the District of Oregon addressed the admissibility of multiple expert witnesses, including those proffered to opine on the design, safety, and operation of industrial lifts and related equipment. The court’s detailed opinion provides a clear example of how courts rigorously evaluate the reliability and relevance of technical expert testimony in lift-related litigation Wolff v. Tomahawk Manufacturing, No. 3:2021cv00880 (D. Or. 2025).

Background and Parties

The plaintiff, Elisabeth Wolff, brought suit against Tomahawk Manufacturing, alleging that a defect in the defendant’s lift equipment caused her serious injury during operation. Wolff claimed that the lift’s design and safety mechanisms were inadequate, resulting in a preventable accident. Tomahawk Manufacturing denied liability, asserting that the equipment met all applicable safety standards and that any alleged defect did not cause the plaintiff’s injuries.

In the complex world of high-value art collateral and litigation funding, the testimony of a Litigation Finance Expert Witness can be pivotal in resolving disputes over the valuation, risk, and structure of litigation finance agreements. The recent case of Athena Art Finance Corp. v. that Certain Artwork By Jean-Michel Basquiat, S.D.N.Y. 2023 provides a compelling example of how courts evaluate and rely upon such expert testimony.

Background and Parties

This case arose from a dispute involving the ownership and financial interests in a valuable artwork by Jean-Michel Basquiat. Athena Art Finance Corp. (“Athena”), a specialty lender in the art finance sector, provided a loan secured by the artwork. The litigation centered on competing claims to the artwork and the proceeds from its potential sale, implicating complex questions of priority, valuation, and the structure of litigation funding agreements.

In a landmark prosecution involving the international shipping industry, the role of the Logistics/Freight Forwarding Expert Witness proved pivotal in clarifying industry standards and fiduciary duties, ultimately influencing the jury’s verdict in a complex fraud scheme. The case, United States v. Armand Ventura, 724 F.2d 305 (2d Cir. 1983), centered on allegations of conspiracy and wire fraud in connection with the arrangement of ocean freight for a major international development project.

Background and Parties

The United States charged Armand Ventura and his company, CEC, with conspiracy to defraud the United States Agency for International Development (AID) and the World Bank, as well as multiple counts of wire fraud. The case arose from CEC’s role as a freight forwarder for Foster Wheeler, a contractor responsible for shipping large project cargo—specifically, a rock crusher and appliances—to Bangladesh. The government alleged that Ventura and CEC manipulated the freight arrangement to create an undisclosed profit margin at the expense of the project’s sponsors.

A recent legal dispute underscores the pivotal role a Machine Guarding Expert Witness plays in industrial accident litigation, particularly in cases involving allegations of defective machine design and inadequate safety measures. In the landmark case of Davis v. Globe Machine Manufacturing Co., 102 Wn.2d 68 (1984), the Washington Supreme Court addressed the complex interplay between product design, workplace safety standards, and expert testimony.

Background and Facts

The plaintiff, Davis, suffered a severe hand injury while cleaning a machine manufactured by Globe Machine Manufacturing Company. The incident occurred when Davis reached into the machine to remove debris from the rollers while they were still in motion. The core allegation was that the machine lacked adequate guarding at the “nip point”—the hazardous area where the rollers met—rendering it unreasonably dangerous for operators performing routine maintenance.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court’s decision in Hall v. Galmor, 2018 OK 59, 427 P.3d 1052, illustrates the decisive role of the Oil & Gas Appraisal Expert Witness in lease-termination disputes. The opinion ultimately redefined Oklahoma’s “paying quantities” test for oil and gas production, with expert valuation analysis at the center of the court’s reasoning.

Background and Parties

The dispute centered on thirty oil and gas leases in Beckham County, Oklahoma. The lessor, Hall, sought to terminate the leases on the ground that the wells had ceased producing in “paying quantities,” a longstanding requirement under Oklahoma law for keeping a mineral lease alive past its primary term. The lessee, Galmor, contended that production was sufficient to maintain the leasehold.

In the California Court of Appeal’s decision in People ex rel. Department of Transportation v. Clauser/Wells Partnership, 95 Cal. App. 4th 1066 (2002), the role of the Personal Property Valuation Expert Witness was central to a high-value eminent domain dispute. The case demonstrates how appellate courts evaluate the admissibility of valuation testimony when expert methodologies sharply diverge.

Background and Parties

The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) initiated an eminent domain action to acquire property from the Clauser/Wells Partnership, the landlord of a tenant business known as Manchester. The central dispute concerned just compensation for Manchester’s substantial business inventory—personal property that would be displaced by the taking.