Articles Posted in Uncategorized

In the case of White v. TK Elevator Corporation, No. 2:21-cv-01696 (D. Nev. Jan. 29, 2025), the testimony of an Elevator & Escalator Expert Witness played a crucial role in evaluating allegations of negligence and failure to maintain elevator equipment, following a mechanical malfunction that exposed a hotel employee to toxic fumes.

Background of the Case

Nathan White, a security guard at the Cosmopolitan Hotel in Las Vegas, responded to a smoke alarm from an elevator brake room in 2019. When he entered the room, he was exposed to chemical fumes allegedly released from a malfunctioning elevator system. White claimed this exposure led to serious respiratory and neurological injuries.

In the case of Rymers v. CPS Energy, No. 2021-CI-12345 (Bexar County Dist. Ct., Feb. 7, 2025), the testimony of a Boilers Expert Witness was instrumental in evaluating the causes and responsibilities surrounding a residential explosion that stemmed from a natural gas leak tied to aging infrastructure. The case involved claims of negligence and inadequate utility maintenance, ultimately resulting in a substantial jury verdict.

Background of the Case

Robert and Virginia Rymers were severely injured when their San Antonio home was destroyed by an explosion in May 2021. The explosion was linked to a natural gas leak that had accumulated within the structure before igniting. Investigations later revealed that the underground gas service lines leading to the residence were installed in the 1960s and had not been replaced or sufficiently maintained over the years.

In the case of Druzba v. Honda Motor Company, Ltd., No. 2:21-cv-00123 (D. Vt. May 15, 2024), the testimony of an Automotive Engineering Expert Witness played a central role in evaluating allegations of vehicle design defects following a fatal traffic accident. The case illustrates the critical importance of expert testimony in automotive product liability litigation, especially when questions arise regarding crashworthiness and structural integrity.

Background of the Case

Cecile Druzba was driving a Honda Accord when her vehicle was struck head-on by a Subaru crossing into her lane. She sustained fatal injuries in the crash. Her husband, Matthew Druzba, filed a wrongful death and product liability lawsuit against Honda, claiming that the Accord’s structural design contributed to the severity of his wife’s injuries. Specifically, he alleged that the vehicle’s body structure failed to adequately protect the occupant compartment and that the side rails and other components allowed excessive intrusion into the cabin.

In the case of A.L. v. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc., No. 20-12720 (11th Cir. 2022), the involvement of a Disabled Access Expert Witness was a central point of contention in a lawsuit concerning alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The case provides an important example of how procedural compliance and expert testimony intersect in ADA litigation.

Background of the Case

The plaintiff, A.L., is an individual with disabilities who sued Walt Disney Parks and Resorts, claiming that Disney’s services did not provide reasonable modifications as required under Title III of the ADA. The plaintiff alleged that Disney failed to accommodate his needs during park visits, particularly in connection with wait times and access to attractions, which he claimed substantially limited his ability to enjoy the park experience.

In the case of Stewart v. Gruber, the testimony of a Structural Engineering Expert Witness was central to the plaintiffs’ attempt to prove claims of professional negligence and breach of contract. However, procedural issues ultimately led to the exclusion of their expert, resulting in dismissal of the case before trial.

Background of the Case

The plaintiffs, Mr. and Mrs. Stewart, hired architect William Gruber to design and oversee the construction of a multi-unit apartment complex. After the project was completed, the Stewarts alleged that the building suffered from multiple structural issues, including uneven flooring, cracked walls, and misaligned framing. They claimed that these issues were due to design and oversight failures by the architect.

In the case of Woelfle v. Black & Decker (U.S.), Inc., No. 1:18-CV-486 (W.D.N.Y. Jul. 7, 2023), the testimony of a Power Tools Expert Witness was central to evaluating claims of product liability and negligence involving a compound miter saw that allegedly caused serious injury to the user.

Background of the Case

James Woelfle filed a personal injury lawsuit against Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc., the manufacturer of a DeWalt DW716 Type 2 compound miter saw. He claimed that while using the saw, his forearm was severely lacerated due to a defective blade guard and an overall unsafe design. The incident left him with significant injuries and permanent disability.

In the case of UGI Sunbury LLC v. A Permanent Easement for 1.7575 Acres, 949 F.3d 825 (3d Cir. 2020), the testimony of a Pipelines Expert Witness played a central role in evaluating claims for damages associated with a natural gas pipeline easement. This case addressed the admissibility and reliability of expert testimony related to property value diminution caused by perceived risks of pipeline proximity—commonly known as “stigma damages.”

Background of the Case

UGI Sunbury LLC, a natural gas company, constructed a 35-mile pipeline in central Pennsylvania. Under the Natural Gas Act, UGI obtained the legal right to take easements by eminent domain across several privately owned parcels of land. The dispute in this case arose from one such property, where the landowners claimed that the presence of the pipeline significantly diminished the value of their land—not due to physical damage, but because of public perception and fear related to the potential danger of a high-pressure natural gas line.

In the case of Moore v. Combe Incorporated, No. 1:20-cv-01185 (W.D. Ark. Oct. 27, 2023), the testimony of a Labels & Warnings Expert Witness played a pivotal role in assessing whether a consumer product’s labeling sufficiently warned users about potential health risks, specifically in a lawsuit involving claims of skin depigmentation.

Background of the Case

Plaintiffs Timothy and Jean Moore sued Combe Incorporated, the manufacturer of “Just For Men Control GX Grey Reducing Shampoo,” alleging that the product caused Timothy Moore to develop vitiligo—a condition marked by patchy loss of skin pigmentation. The Moores claimed that Combe failed to provide adequate warnings about known risks linked to the shampoo’s active ingredient, p-Phenylenediamine (PPD), a chemical long associated with adverse skin reactions.