Expert Witness Blog
In the case of Du-All Safety, LLC v. Superior Court of Alameda County, No. A155119 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019), the role of a Construction Safety Expert Witness was central to litigation involving a serious workplace injury on a construction site. The appellate decision focused on the procedural rules governing expert witness designations and had important implications for construction safety litigation in California.
Background of the Case
In 2015, Mark Krein, an employee of the Tuolumne Water District, was severely injured after falling from a bridge at his workplace when the structure unexpectedly gave way. As a result of the fall, Krein suffered permanent paraplegia. He and his wife filed a personal injury lawsuit against several defendants, including engineers, general contractors, and safety consultants who had participated in the design, inspection, or oversight of the project.
One of the defendants was Du-All Safety, LLC, a company contracted to conduct safety inspections and provide consultation services to ensure the construction site met regulatory safety standards. The plaintiffs alleged that Du-All negligently failed to identify and address the unsafe conditions that ultimately led to the collapse of the bridge deck.
Role of the Construction Safety Expert Witness
In preparing for trial, both parties designated expert witnesses. The plaintiffs listed several experts across different disciplines, including structural engineering and workplace safety. In response, Du-All initially designated two experts—a structural engineer and a safety professional—to defend against the plaintiffs’ claims.
After receiving the plaintiffs’ expert disclosures, Du-All attempted to supplement its expert witness list with five additional experts, arguing that the new witnesses were necessary to rebut novel or unexpected issues raised by the plaintiffs’ experts.
These additional experts were intended to address specific claims made by the plaintiffs, including causation, code compliance, engineering standards, and safety protocols—topics central to the case and often evaluated by a Construction Safety Expert Witness.
Court Proceedings and Findings
The plaintiffs objected to Du-All’s supplemental disclosure, filing a motion to strike the late-added experts on the grounds that Du-All had failed to include them in its initial designation. The trial court sided with the plaintiffs and ruled that Du-All could not introduce the supplemental experts at trial, citing concerns of unfair surprise and procedural noncompliance.
Du-All appealed the trial court’s ruling. On appeal, the California Court of Appeal reversed the lower court’s decision, finding that Du-All had a legitimate right to supplement its expert disclosures in response to new issues presented in the plaintiffs’ designations. The appellate court emphasized that expert discovery rules are designed to promote fairness and efficiency, not to serve as a trap for parties responding in good faith to evolving trial strategy.
The court explained that where an opposing party raises new theories or introduces expert opinions not previously disclosed, a responding party must be given a reasonable opportunity to present rebuttal experts. In this context, Du-All’s effort to introduce additional expert witnesses—particularly on construction safety matters—was deemed appropriate and procedurally proper.
Legal Significance
This case provides important guidance on the flexibility of expert witness disclosure rules in California. It underscores the need for trial courts to allow reasonable supplementation when new expert opinions are introduced late in the discovery process. It also highlights the importance of Construction Safety Expert Witnesses in litigation involving workplace injuries, especially when multiple parties are involved in overseeing site conditions.
Conclusion
Du-All Safety, LLC v. Superior Court of Alameda County reinforces the critical role that a Construction Safety Expert Witness can play in evaluating site conditions, workplace hazards, and industry compliance in construction-related injury claims. The appellate court’s decision clarifies the procedural fairness expected in managing expert designations and ensures that parties have a meaningful opportunity to defend themselves when complex safety standards are in dispute.