Articles Posted in Uncategorized

In the case of Robinson v. Crown Equipment Corporation, No. 2:02CV00084-WRW (E.D. Ark. Mar. 30, 2006), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas addressed issues of product liability and negligence following a forklift accident. The testimony of a Forklifts Expert Witness was central to the court’s analysis.

Case Background

On May 18, 2001, Jason Robinson, the plaintiff, was operating a stand-up forklift designed and manufactured by Crown Equipment Corporation (the defendant) at a plant in West Memphis, Arkansas. It was Robinson’s first day on the job. While maneuvering the forklift in a freezer unit, he lost control and collided with a post. The impact caused his left foot to extend outside the operator compartment, leading to a subsequent collision with another post that crushed his foot. Robinson filed a lawsuit against Crown Equipment Corporation, alleging that the forklift was defectively designed due to its open operator compartment, which he argued should have been enclosed to prevent such injuries.

In the sprawling multidistrict litigation of In Re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, S.D.N.Y. 2001, the role and admissibility of expert testimony—particularly that of an Investment Banking Expert Witness—became a focal point as federal courts grappled with complex allegations of securities fraud and market manipulation by leading investment banks.

Background and Parties

This litigation consolidated over 860 securities class actions brought by plaintiffs against more than 200 publicly traded companies and approximately 40 major investment banks. Plaintiffs alleged that these investment banks, acting as underwriters, engaged in unlawful practices to manipulate the prices of newly issued stocks, thereby violating federal securities laws. The cases were centralized before Judge Shira A. Scheindlin in the Southern District of New York for coordinated pretrial proceedings due to the commonality of factual and legal issues.

In the case of Behrens v. Arconic, Inc., 487 F. Supp. 3d 283 (E.D. Pa. 2020), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania addressed a significant lawsuit stemming from the tragic Grenfell Tower fire in London. This case prominently featured the involvement of a Fire Expert Witness to assess the causes and contributing factors of the fire.

Case Background

On June 14, 2017, a devastating fire engulfed Grenfell Tower, resulting in 72 fatalities and numerous injuries. The rapid spread of the fire was largely attributed to the building’s exterior cladding system. In response, survivors and victims’ families filed a lawsuit against Arconic, Inc., the manufacturer of the cladding materials, alleging that the company’s products were defective and contributed to the fire’s severity.

In the recent California Court of Appeal decision, In re Marriage of Lietz, 2024, the court addressed the pivotal role of the Appraisal & Valuation Expert Witness in the division of marital property, specifically the valuation of the family home during dissolution proceedings.

Background and Parties

Diana and Andreas Lietz were parties to a marital dissolution action in which the primary dispute centered on the value of their family residence. Both parties retained appraisal experts to provide opinions on the fair market value of the property. Diana’s expert appraised the home at $1.1 million, while Andreas’s expert valued it at $1,020,000. The difference in valuation was significant, as it directly impacted the division of assets and the financial outcome for each party.

In the case of Holcomb v. Long, 765 S.E.2d 687 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014), the Court of Appeals of Georgia examined the applicability of the state’s equine immunity statute in a negligence lawsuit arising from a horseback riding incident.

Case Background

Michael Holcomb filed a lawsuit against Charles Long, alleging that Long’s negligence in saddling a horse led to Holcomb’s fall and subsequent injuries. Holcomb contended that Long failed to properly secure the saddle, causing it to slip during the ride. In response, Long invoked Georgia’s Injuries From Equine or Llama Activities Act (the “Act”), asserting that it provided him immunity from liability.

In the eminent domain dispute of Iske v. Metropolitan Utilities District of Omaha, 183 Neb. 34 (1968), the Nebraska Supreme Court addressed the admissibility and reliability of testimony from a Utilities Appraisal Expert Witness in determining the fair market value of land condemned for public utility use. This case remains a touchstone for the role of expert appraisal in complex utility-related takings.

Background and Parties

The Metropolitan Utilities District of Omaha initiated condemnation proceedings to acquire land owned by the Iske family for public utility purposes. The central dispute concerned the appropriate valuation of the condemned property, which included both active gravel extraction operations and potential future recreational and subdivision uses. The Iskes, as plaintiffs, sought compensation reflecting not only the current use but also the land’s prospective value.

In the case of Meemic Insurance Co. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 717 F. Supp. 2d 752 (E.D. Mich. 2010), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan addressed the admissibility of testimony from an electrical engineering expert witness in a subrogation claim following a house fire.

Case Background

Meemic Insurance Company, the plaintiff, insured a residence that suffered significant damage due to a fire. The plaintiff alleged that the fire originated from a defect in the AC power adapter of a printer manufactured by Hewlett-Packard (HP), the defendant. To support its claims of breach of implied warranty, product liability, and negligence, Meemic retained an electrical engineering expert to determine the fire’s cause.

In the recent decision of JOLLEY v. McCLAIN, Oklahoma Supreme Court 2025, the Oklahoma Supreme Court addressed the scope of permissible discovery into the financial records of a Tax Expert Witness in condemnation proceedings. The case provides critical guidance on the intersection of expert witness bias, discovery rights, and the statutory limits imposed by state law.

Background and Parties

The dispute arose from a condemnation action initiated by the Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT) to acquire a strip of land owned by Christopher Charles Jolley. After negotiations failed, ODOT filed suit and, pursuant to Oklahoma law, three disinterested freeholders were appointed as commissioners to appraise the property. The commissioners valued the property at $15,310. Jolley, dissatisfied with the valuation, demanded a jury trial. ODOT identified Robert Grace as its expert appraiser for the upcoming proceedings.

The complex world of art authentication and ownership disputes came into sharp focus in Kozar v. Christie’s, Inc., New York Other Courts 2011, where an Antiques, Art, & Collectibles Appraisal Expert Witness played a crucial role in establishing the rightful ownership of a valuable painting that had been consigned to the prestigious Christie’s auction house.

Background and Facts

The case arose when the Kozar family discovered that a painting they claimed had been stolen from them decades earlier was scheduled for auction at Christie’s. The painting had originally belonged to the family’s patriarch and had been passed down through generations. According to the plaintiffs’ account, the artwork had been given to someone identified as “O’Keefe” under false pretenses, who subsequently sold it for what the family characterized as a “bargain basement price” of $1,600 to an art gallery owner operating under the name “John Doe.”

In the pivotal case of Libas, Ltd. v. United States, 193 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1999), the role of the Import/Export Expert Witness was central to the dispute over the classification of imported fabric and the reliability of expert testimony in customs litigation.

Background and Facts

Libas, Ltd., an importer of textile goods, challenged the United States Customs Service’s determination that certain imported fabric was “power-loomed” rather than “hand-loomed.” This classification had significant tariff implications, as hand-loomed fabrics were eligible for preferential treatment under U.S. customs regulations. The dispute arose when Customs conducted technical tests on the fabric and concluded it was produced by power looms, subjecting it to higher duties.