In the case of Ruth Mitchell v. City of Franklin, Tennessee, No. M2021-00877-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 25, 2022), the Tennessee Court of Appeals examined the admissibility and impact of expert testimony in a premises liability lawsuit. The involvement of a Human Factors Expert Witness was central to the court’s analysis.

Case Background

Ruth Mitchell, the plaintiff, filed a lawsuit against the City of Franklin, Tennessee, after tripping over a temporary sign base on a sidewalk and sustaining injuries. She alleged that the City was negligent in maintaining the sidewalk and failing to warn pedestrians of the hazard. The City denied liability, contending that the sign base was open and obvious, and that Mitchell was at fault for not paying attention.

In the case of Richard v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., No. B322044 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 30, 2024), the California Court of Appeal addressed the admissibility of expert testimony in a negligence lawsuit filed under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA). The court’s decision hinged significantly on the proposed testimony of a Railroad Expert Witness.

Case Background

Terrence Richard, employed as a brakeman by Union Pacific Railroad Company, suffered a fall resulting in a broken leg while performing his duties. He alleged that the locomotive engineer’s improper handling of the train caused a sudden surge, leading to his fall. Specifically, Richard contended that the engineer’s delay between releasing the train brakes and engaging the throttle induced excessive “slack action,” creating a hazardous surge at the train’s rear where he was stationed. Slack action refers to the movement within the coupling spaces between railcars, which can cause jolts or surges, especially in longer trains.

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 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 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 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.

Introduction

In the recent case of Impagliazzo v. Judlau Contracting, Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 50952(U) (N.Y. App. Div. 2023), the testimony of a

Slip, Trip & Fall Expert Witness was crucial. This case involved a worker who tripped and fell on a rebar mat at a construction site, leading to significant injuries.

Introduction

In the recent case of Crofts v. Issaquah School District, No. 19-35473 (9th Cir. 2022), the expertise of a

Child Safety Expert Witness was crucial. This case involved allegations of negligence in supervising a child with special needs, leading to the child’s injury.

Introduction

In the recent case of Monsanto Company v. Hardeman, No. 19-16636 (9th Cir. 2023), the testimony of a

Chemicals Expert Witness played a pivotal role. This case revolved around claims that Monsanto’s herbicide, Roundup, caused non-Hodgkin lymphoma in the plaintiff, Edwin Hardeman.

Introduction

In the recent case of Kenai Ironclad Corp. v. CP Marine Services, LLC, No. 22-30311 (5th Cir. 2023), the testimony of an

Admiralty & Maritime Expert Witness played a pivotal role. This case involved a breach of contract related to the repair and conversion of an offshore supply vessel.