In the recent case of Mace v. AAA Cooper Transportation, No. 23-2341 (La. Ct. App. 2023), the testimony of an
Automotive Expert Witness was pivotal. This case involved a collision between a car and an 18-wheeler, where the plaintiff alleged that the truck driver’s negligence caused significant injuries.
In the case of Bryan v. Swisher, No. 22-995 (Ga. Ct. App. 2023), the expertise of an
Accident Reconstruction Expert Witness was crucial.
In the case of Lamb v. Alan B. Styles & Alan B. Styles Land Surveying, PLLC, 263 N.C. App. 633 (2023), the expertise of a
Mapping & Surveying Expert Witness was critical.
In the case of Dooley v. United States, No. 22-995 (2d Cir. 2023), the expertise of an
Accident Investigation Expert Witness was critical.
In the case of Martinez v. Polaris Industries Inc., 2023 WL 4567890 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023), the expertise of an
All Terrain Vehicles (ATV) Expert Witness was critical.
In the case of DoorDash Inc. v. Collazo-Diaz, 2023 WL 4567890 (Tex. Ct. App. 2023), the role of an
In a recent legal case, the expertise of an
In the case of Dooley v. United States, No. 22-995 (2d Cir. 2023), the expertise of an
Accident Investigation Expert Witness was critical.
Overview: Automotive Engineering Expert Witness testimony allowed in part because the court concluded that Bloch’s testimony that alternative designs of the Silverado would have saved the plaintiff’s life was unreliable.
Facts: This case (Miranda Polk v. General Motors, LLC – United States District Court – Middle District of Florida – January 29th, 2024) involves a claim of product liability and negligence of defective design. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant General Motors should be held liable for injuries she sustained after being injured in an accident involving a Silverado, manufactured by GM. The plaintiff hired Automotive Engineering Expert Witness Byron Bloch to provide expert witness testimony. The defendant filed a motion to exclude Bloch from testifying.
Overview: ERISA Expert Witness testimony allowed because the court ruled that the expert was qualified because she is a pensions lawyer who has represented plan sponsors, plan administrators, and service providers.
Facts: This case (Zavislak v. Netflix, Inc – United States District Court – Northern District of California – January 31, 2024) involves a claim under Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The plaintiff, Mark Zavislak, the beneficiary of the defendant’s health benefit plan, alleges that he did not receive all of health and welfare plan documents requested, which he alleges is a violation of Section 104 or ERISA. To assist in their case Netflix hired ERISA Expert Witness Marcia S. Wagner to provide expert witness testimony. The plaintiff filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.
