Introduction
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.
Case Summary Involving an Accident Investigation Expert Witness
Introduction
In the case of Dooley v. United States, No. 22-995 (2d Cir. 2023), the expertise of an
Accident Investigation Expert Witness was critical.
Case Summary Involving a Mapping & Surveying Expert Witness
Introduction
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.
Case Summary Involving an Accident Reconstruction Safety Expert Witness
Introduction
In the case of DoorDash Inc. v. Collazo-Diaz, 2023 WL 4567890 (Tex. Ct. App. 2023), the role of an
Case Summary Involving an All Terrain Vehicles (ATV) Expert Witness
Case Summary Involving an Accident Reconstruction & Safety Expert Witness
Introduction
In a recent legal case, the expertise of an
Case Summary Involving an Accident Investigation Expert Witness
Introduction
In the case of Dooley v. United States, No. 22-995 (2d Cir. 2023), the expertise of an
Accident Investigation Expert Witness was critical.
Automotive Engineering Expert Witness Testimony Allowed in Part in Automobile Accident Case
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.
ERISA Expert Witness Allowed in Pension Plan Documents Litigation
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.
Mechanical Engineering Expert Witness Testimony Allowed
Summary: Mechanical Engineering Expert Witness allowed to provide testimony even though the defendant’s argued that he was not qualified to offer an opinion on miters saws as he does not have the requisite experience on the topic.
Facts: This case (Landi et al v. Home Depot USA, Inc. et al – United States District Court – Middle District of Florida – September 24th, 2019) involves a products liability claim. The plaintiff claims that he was injured while using a miter saw manufactured by the defendant and purchased from Home Depot. The plaintiff alleges that he was using the saw to cut crown molding, operating the saw with his right hand and holding the crown molding with his left. The plaintiff claims that while the blade was spinning, the crown molding was pulled to the right and the plaintiff’s left arm was pulled as well. The blade subsequently cut into the plaintiff’s left forearm. The plaintiff hired Mechanical Engineering Expert Witness Dr. Charles E. Benedict to provide expert witness testimony and the defendant has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.
Weather & Meteorology Expert Witness Testimony Allowed in Part
Summary: A Weather & Meteorology Expert Witness allowed to testify, in part, in fire litigation caused by lightning despite objections from the plaintiffs that his testimony would not assist the trier of fact.
Facts: This case (Philmar Dairy, LLC et al v. Armstrong Farms, et al – United States District Court – District of New Mexico – July 12th, 2019) involves a dispute over the delivery of alfalfa hay. The plaintiffs allege that the defendant did not deliver over 2,500 tons of hay and did not refund the money to the plaintiffs. The defendants state that a fire caused lightning destroyed the hay. The plaintiffs state that the defendants fabricated the existence of the fire. The defendants hired Dr. Elizabeth Austin (Weather & Meteorology Expert Witness) to provide testimony. The plaintiffs have filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.