Expert Witness Blog

In the case of Caribbean Utilities Company, Ltd. v. Howard Industries, Inc., No. 2:17-cv-00179 (S.D. Miss. 2019), the testimony of a Utilities Expert Witness was central to addressing allegations of product defects and evaluating the performance and reliability of electrical transformers supplied to a utility company.

Background of the Case

Caribbean Utilities Company, Ltd. (CUC), a utility provider based in the Cayman Islands, brought a lawsuit against Howard Industries, Inc., a U.S.-based manufacturer of electrical transformers. CUC alleged that several transformers provided by Howard were defective and failed prematurely, causing substantial operational disruptions and financial damages. The key legal questions centered on whether the transformers were defective due to manufacturing errors or failed due to conditions outside the manufacturer’s control.

In the case of National Emergency Medical Services, Inc. v. Smith, 368 Ga. App. 18 (2023), the testimony of an Emergency Communications & 911 Expert Witness was central to evaluating the standard of care provided by emergency medical services (EMS) personnel and the adequacy of their training protocols in response to a 911 call.

Background of the Case

The estate of a deceased individual, referred to as Smith, brought a negligence action against National Emergency Medical Services, Inc. (National EMS). The suit alleged that EMS personnel failed to take adequate steps to locate and assist Smith during a critical medical event, despite a 911 call requesting emergency care.

In the case of Gates Rubber Company v. Bando Chemical Industries, Ltd., 167 F.R.D. 90 (D. Colo. 1996), the testimony of a Materials Expert Witness was pivotal in addressing allegations of trade secret misappropriation and unfair competition in the industrial manufacturing sector.

Background of the Case

Gates Rubber Company, a leader in the development and production of industrial belts and related products, filed a lawsuit against Bando Chemical Industries, a competing manufacturer, along with several former Gates employees. The lawsuit alleged that Bando and the employees misappropriated Gates’ proprietary materials and software related to the design and production of industrial belts.

In the case of Courtland Co. v. Union Carbide Corp., No. 2:19-cv-00894 (S.D.W. Va. Apr. 29, 2022), the testimony of a Hazardous Materials Expert Witness was pivotal in addressing claims of environmental contamination and evaluating the scientific reliability of expert methodologies in a hazardous materials dispute.

Background of the Case

Courtland Company filed a lawsuit against Union Carbide Corporation (UCC), claiming that operations at UCC’s facility led to the release and migration of hazardous substances onto Courtland’s adjacent property. Courtland alleged that these contaminants, including heavy metals and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), diminished the value of their property and posed environmental and health risks. The suit included claims of negligence, trespass, and violations of federal environmental laws.

In the case of Rymers v. CPS Energy, filed in 2021 in San Antonio, Texas, the testimony of an Explosions Expert Witness was instrumental in determining the cause of a devastating natural gas explosion and establishing liability for the catastrophic event.

Background of the Case

On February 23, 2021, a powerful explosion leveled the home of Robert and Virginia Rymers, severely injuring both and killing their two dogs. The couple sustained extensive burns and trauma, requiring multiple surgeries and ongoing rehabilitation. Following the incident, the Rymers filed a lawsuit against CPS Energy, the municipally owned utility provider responsible for the delivery and maintenance of natural gas to their residence.

In the case of Anderson v. Jim’s Restaurants, Inc., filed in January 2022 in San Antonio, Texas, the testimony of a Restaurants Expert Witness played a pivotal role in assessing the safety standards and maintenance practices of the establishment.

Background of the Case

Chris and Catherine Anderson were dining at a Jim’s Restaurants location when a large plate glass window suddenly shattered near their table. Glass shards struck both individuals, resulting in injuries and emotional distress. The couple subsequently filed a lawsuit seeking over $1 million in damages, alleging that Jim’s Restaurants, Inc. and its property management affiliate failed to maintain a safe premises and neglected to address a known hazard.

In the case of Concho Resources Inc. v. Ellison, No. 13-20-00055-CV (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2022), the involvement of an Oil & Gas Expert Witness was pivotal in addressing the admissibility of testimony regarding alleged lost production damages in an oil and gas dispute.

Background of the Case

Concho Resources Inc., an oil and gas company operating in Texas, entered into a dispute with Ellison related to alleged interference with oil production from a particular well. Concho claimed that Ellison’s actions caused a significant decline in production, resulting in financial losses. As part of its lawsuit, Concho sought to recover damages for lost production and retained internal technical personnel to support its claims.