Plaintiff filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against defendant. The defendant hired an infectious disease expert witness to provide testimony. Plaintiff filed a motion to exclude this witness based on qualification. The court denied the motion.
The court in a high-profile 45 year old Cook County Illinois murder case ruled that payment for a Pathology Expert Witness could come fro a defendant’s bond.
The Chicago Tribune reports that the defendant who is accused of first degree murder can to withdraw money from his $400,000 bond fund in order to pay for an expert witness at his upcoming trial.
Donnie Rudd, who is now 76, was once a prominent Illinois attorney. Now Rudd is charged with murdering his wife for insurance money in 1973. The state alleges that Rudd staged an auto accident to cover the murder. His wife Noreen Kumeta Rudd was nineteen years old at the time.
Drone Expert Witnesses may soon be called to testify on how and to what extent authorities can remotely identify a drone’s pilot.
At the Federal Aviation Administration’s Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) Symposium in Baltimore, the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) debated the question of when they will allow the identification of the operator of unmanned drone aircraft.
As reported by Ben Hanock in his article: “What’s Next: Whose Drone is That?“, this “remote ID” rule could be a first step to more permissive regulations for commercial drone flights. Authorities want to be able to know who’s operating the drones before drone flights out of the line of sight are allowed. Right now they are generally not allowed under FAA regulations.
Plaintiff filed a conspiracy claim against defendants related to her husband’s exposure to asbestos. The plaintiff hired a pathology expert witness, an environmental engineering expert witness and an engineering expert witness to assist in her case. The defendant filed a motion to exclude, which was denied by the court.
Plumbing and HVAC Expert Witness Russell Keeler of Chason Energy reports that he was involved in a matter where a contractor hired an engineer to create plans and specifications based on a performance specification issued by an owner. The documents created by the engineer were used by the contractor to prepare a bid. The performance specification was rather specific in terms of expected sound levels and temperature conditions in the various spaces.
The engineer developed bid documents, which the contractor then used to prepare his bid. His bid price was low (by half) of the next bidder, and he was awarded the project. When the plans were reviewed by the concept engineer, they were rejected. The contractor was forced to provide an installation that conformed to the performance specification.
In the lawsuit, the contractor sued the engineer for the difference in cost between the bid price and the cost to install the required installation. Mr. Keeler identified the areas that the engineer had taken liberties in the design. The judge found for the contractor.
Plaintiff sued defendants after being injured by a weedwacker. Plaintiff hired an Osteopathy Expert Witness and an Ergonomics Expert Witness to provide testimony. The defendants filed motions to exclude. The court denied the motion against Dr. Murphy and granted in part and denied in part the motion against Mr. Mitchell
A common problem in mixed use developments (residential, retail, etc.) is the allocation of utility costs. As developers try to minimize first costs of construction, the simple answer is to make the complex all-electric, so that each condo owner has an individual electric meter. In higher end developments, this becomes a problem, as all electric is perceived as “lower end”. A common solution is to use central gas fired hot water heat with gas appliances, with separate gas meters. But…what to do about allocating heating costs? Generally, natural gas costs are proportioned based on the design engineer’s estimate. In a case where tenants dispute the allocation, additional calculations to verify the original allocations can be made, with a possible recommendation to add a series meters to more accurately assign costs.
Plaintiffs sued defendant after their claim on a title insurance policy was denied by the defendant. The plaintiff hired a Real Estate Valuation Expert Witness to provide testimony on their behalf. The defendant filed a motion to exclude this testimony, which the court denied.
Plaintiff’s family sued defendants after their family member died. The defendants blame the defendants for the death. The plaintiffs hired a Cardiology Expert Witness to provide testimony. The defendants filed a motion to exclude this testimony, which was denied by the court.