by

Summary:  Aerospace Engineering Expert Witness allowed to testify in part despite defendants’ argument that he does not have knowledge of the actual regulations that were violated.

Facts: This case (Aircraft Holding Solutions LLC et al v. Learjet Inc et al – United States District Court – Northern District of Texas – July 29, 2022) involves a claim of damages to a Bombardier Challenger 300 during routine maintenance.  The plaintiffs filed this action after the airplane fell from it’s jacks.  The plaintiffs argue that they are entitled to damages for the value of the aircraft and other damages as a result of the defendant’s negligence.  The plaintiffs hired Aerospace Engineering Expert Witness Pat Duggins to provide expert testimony.  The defendants have filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

by

Summary: Accident Reconstruction Expert Witness allowed to testify as the court ruled that his expert opinion was reliable as he reconstructed the accident based on the truck driver.

Facts:  This case (Irwin Tripp v. Walmart, Inc et al – United States District Court – Middle District of Florida – November 16, 2022) involves a personal injury lawsuit.  The plaintiff, Irwin Tripp, was injured when a terminal tractor hit him and dragged him after unloading goods.  The plaintiff sustained horrible injuries, losing both his legs in the accident.  The defendant hired Accident Reconstruction Expert Witness Donald J. Fournier to provide expert witness testimony.  The plaintiff filed a motion to to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

by

Summary: Mechanical Engineering Expert Witness allowed to testify even though the defendant argued that his expert opinion should be excluded because he did not conduct an accident reconstruction report.

Facts:  This case (Hix-Hernandez v. Ford Motor Co. – United States District Court – Western District of Texas – July 25, 2022) involves a products-liability claim against Ford Motor Company.  The plaintiff, Staci Hix-Hernandez, claims that she was injured when a battery dislodged from an Ford F-150 truck after it collided with a tractor-trailer.  Hix Hernandez says that the battery became airborne and crashed through her windshield and hit her in the face.  She states that she sustained numerous injuries due to the accident including facial fractures, chemical burns to her face, as well as physical and emotional trauma.  Hix-Hernandez filed suit against Ford Motor, claiming that the battery was defectively secured in the compartment of the F-150 and that the design of the battery restraint in the F-150 was flawed.  Hix-Hernandez hired Mechanical Engineering Expert Witness Jahan Rasty, Ph.D to provide expert witness testimony in this case.  Ford has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

by

Overview:  Occupational Medicine Expert Witness testimony is granted in part because part of the expert’s testimony on the company’s negligence was a legal conclusion and not allowed.

Facts:  This case  (Malone et al v. Spence et al – United States District Court – Northern District of Texas – August 9th, 2023) involves a motor vehicle accident. The defendant was operating a tractor-trailer and drove off a roadway and crashed into two vehicles that were parked at a convenience store, injuring two people who were sleeping at the time.  The plaintiffs allege that the driver did not maintain proper control of the truck and was operating a commercial vehicle even though he was unqualified, fatigued, which was in violation of numerous local, state, and federal laws.  To prove their case, the plaintiffs hired Occupational Medicine Expert Witness Stefanos Kales to provide expert witness testimony.  The defendant filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

by

Summary:  Orthopedic Surgeon Expert Witness testimony is allowed despite the plaintiff’s argument that he is not qualified to offer opinions on medical rates.

Facts:  This case (Galvez v. KLLM Transp. Servs., LLC – United States District Court – Northern District of Texas – December 16th, 2021) involves a claim to recover damages resulting from a collision between two vehicles.   The plaintiff hired Orthopedic Surgeon Expert Witness Andrew Indresano, M.D. to provide expert testimony on her behalf.  The defendant filed a motion to exclude this expert witness from testifying.

Continue reading

by

Summary:  Industrial Medicine Expert Witness testimony not allowed even though the plaintiff’s claim that her conclusions are supported by the facts.

Facts:  This case (Hill v. The GEO Group – United States District Court – Western District of Louisiana – December 21st, 2021) involves a negligence claim against the defendants regarding workplace conditions, specifically exposure to mold. The plaintiffs claims that the facility in which they worked had a long history of flooding and that condensation from the air conditioner would drip on their heads.  The plaintiffs assert that exposure to mold caused numerous medical conditions such as headaches, sore throats, and fatigue. To prove their case, the plaintiffs have hired Industrial Medicine Expert Witness Dr. Stephanie Cave to provide expert witness testimony.  The defendants has filed a motion to exclude Dr. Cave’s testimony.

Continue reading

by

Summary: Software Expert Witness testimony allowed even though the defense argued that his opinions were not reliable because they were based on apposite facts.

Facts: This case (SiteLock LLC v. GoDaddy.com LLC – United States District Court – District of Arizona – March 2nd, 2022) involves a breach of contract claim.  SiteLock entered into a contract with GoDaddy whereas GoDaddy agreed to sell SiteLock’s security services.  When a GoDaddy customer purchased a SiteLock subscription, and took the steps to activate the service, a sale of the proceeds would go to SiteLock.  SiteLock claims that if a GoDaddy customer purchased a SiteLock subscription, but failed to activate it, GoDaddy would still provide a sale of the proceeds to SiteLock.  GoDaddy claims that this was not part of the agreement.  In order to prove their claims, SiteLock hired Software Expert Witness Dr. Steven Kursh to provide expert testimony.  GoDaddy has filed a motion to exclude Dr. Kursh from testifying.

Continue reading

by

Summary: Electronics Expert Witness not allowed to testify in contract case even though he owns a small business performing audio-visual installations.

Facts:  This case (Peters v. Best Buy Stores, LP – United States District Court – District of Maryland – March 3rd, 2022) involves a breach of contract claim filed against Best Buy. The plaintiff, Nnena Ella Peters, says that she went to Best Buy to order numerous televisions and appliances.  She claims that staff at Best Buy convinced her that the company and its subsidiaries had the experience, reputation and size to handle the project.  By 2020, Peters alleges that the systems in her house were not working to her satisfaction even though best Buy continued to work on the project.  She then filed suit against the company.  In order to prove her case, Peters hired Electronics Expert Witness Mr. Orjan Dhimitri Gjoni to provide expert testimony.  Best Buy has filed a motion to exclude the expert witness testimony of Mr. Gjoni.

Continue reading

by

Summary: Employment Expert Witness testimony allowed in part even though the plaintiff argued that it is up to the judge and the jury to to decide liability based on the evidence in the case.

Facts:  This case (Dickson v. The Bosworth – United States District Court – Western District of Texas – May 13th, 2022) involves a claim of racial discrimination.  The defendant, Bosworth has hired Employment Expert Witness W. Clark Lea to provide testimony on its behalf.   The defendant hired Mr. Lea to provide expert testimony on whether or not Bosworth performed reasonable care to prevent or correct harassing and discriminatory behavior and whether Dickson did not take advantage of any corrective or preventative behavior which was provided by Bosworth.  The plaintiff has filed a motion to exclude this expert from providing expert witness testimony.

Continue reading

by

Summary: Licensing Expert Witness testimony was allowed despite the expert relying on the testimony of third parties.

Facts:  This case (Federal Trade Commission v. Qualcomm Incorporated – United States District Court – Northern District of California – December 10th, 2018) involves a complicated interaction between cellular communications standards, standard essential patents (“SEPs”), and the market for baseband processors, or “modem chips”.  The plaintiff has hired Richard L. Donaldson (Licensing Expert Witness) to provide expert testimony on their behalf.  The defendant has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading