The reverse engineering expert witness focuses on discovering the technological principles of a device, object or system through analysis of its structure, function and operation. Reverse engineering is a process of examination only: the software system under consideration is not modified (which would make it re-engineering).
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_engineering.
The California Department of Transportation Roadside Safety Research Group is responsible for evaluating the crash worthiness of roadside safety technology such as barriers, guardrails, crash cushions, bridge rails, sign supports and other hardware. The branch conducts full-scale crash tests on roadside safety hardware designs developed by Caltrans to assure that these designs comply with applicable crash performance criteria. It also evaluates the crash worthiness of proprietary hardware developed by others to assure that such hardware is acceptable for use on state highways. Finally, the branch provides support to Caltrans Legal in tort liability cases by conducting crash tests and providing technical assessments and expert witness testimony.
Crashworthiness experts at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration answer the questions “DO MOTORCYCLE HELMETS INTERFERE WITH THE VISION AND HEARING OF RIDERS? ‘
Motorcycle crash statistics show that helmets are about 29 percent effective in preventing crash fatalities. That is, on average, riders wearing a helmet have a 29 percent better chance of surviving a crash than riders without a helmet.The hearing test showed that there were no significant differences in the riders’ ability to hear the auditory signals regardless of whether they were wearing a helmet or not. There was a difference, however, in the hearing threshold between travel speeds of 30 and 50mph. At the greater speed, all riders needed a louder auditory signal because of increased wind noise.
In What Fire Scene Responders Need to Know in Tough Economic Times (Part 1), fire expert witness and Principal of Pyrocop Inc., Robert Rowe writes:
Fire investigation is one of the most difficult of the forensic sciences to practice and as the motivations for arson increase, so too may the need for professional investigators. In most forensic disciplines, even the basic question of whether a crime has been committed is in most cases obvious. However, unlike most crime scenes, a fire scene requires a thorough and systematic examination to determine the cause as arson.
A fire investigator must closely evaluate the evidence that is left behind after a fire and, from that evidence, glean as much information as possible to reconstruct the chain of events that occurred in the moments leading up to the fire.
In Basic Characteristics And “Life” of Residential Mortgage Loans mortgages expert witness J. F. “Chip” Morrow writes:
The underwriter must also evaluate the character risk of the borrower. Statistics have shown that past satisfactory payment credit history indicates with high probability that the prospective borrower will make future payments including this new loan. The underwriter analyzes the prospective borrower’s credit history by obtaining a Residential Mortgage Credit Report (“Credit Report”). This Credit Report includes the prospective borrower’s credit histories for the last seven years. This includes credit histories for credit cards, automobile loans, student loans, other home loans, etc., as well as negative credit information including bankruptcies, notices of default, foreclosures and public records. As a requirement of the Credit Report, it must contain at least two of the three borrower’s FICO scores ─ Fair Isaac Score, Beacon Score and Empirica.
A FICO score is a numerical value that ranges between 300 and 850, with the low end of the scale representing a poorer credit risk. Loan entities then use the borrower’s FICO score to chart whether or not a prospective borrower is eligible to receive a mortgage. During the underwriting process, the underwriter must continually be aware of the “red flags” that indicate that the borrower may have problems repaying the loan, that the borrower may not qualify for the type of mortgage loan being sought or that there may be fraud. Freddie Mac has put out a guide called Fraud Prevention Best Practices that outlines these red flags for the various documentation provided by the borrower, the appraiser and the credit reporting agencies.
In When the Phone Rings … Twelve Questions for Prospective Expert Witness Assignments, insurance claims expert witness Kevin M. Quinley, CPCU, ARM, AIC writes:
Consultants and expert witnesses are more used to answering questions than asking them. When the phone rings, there may be an attorney or prospective client on the other end of the line. He or she poses questions to the consultant or expert, trying to gauge whether there is a good “fit” between the client’s needs and what the practitioner can offer in the way of experience and expertise. After answering prospective clients’ questions, effective consultants and expert witnesses may have some queries of their own. In fact, they should. Here are 12 questions that can form the basis of an effective fact-gathering process which unearths aspects of a case to help the consultant and expert witness gauge the degree of fit:
(3) Who is the opposing party? (Any conflict?) You can avoid wasting time if you find out up front that you have a conflict, or clear the decks for a possible retention by confirming that you don’t. As an example, I was recently approached about the possibility of serving as an expert witness concerning an insurance coverage dispute. The dispute was between a large medical device manufacturer and one of its excess insurers. I have never represented the medical company, but I do own shares of its stock. I disclosed this quickly to the inquiring attorneys. Neither they (nor I) feel it is a conflict, but I would rather have them make that call early on.
Risk management expert witness Robert Maughan testifed on the damage real estate values sustained in Port Colborne, Ontario, Canada, as a result of historical contamination at the Inco refinery. The class action suit against the nickel giant led by Eric Gillespie on behalf on the plaintiff wants to establish the correlation between neighborhood property contamination, which first came to light in 2000, and falling real estate values in the city following Inco’s disclosure.
The expert witness is a program manager of risk management services for financial markets at Teranet and relied heavily on Teranet’s Real Estate Automated Value (REAV) System from 2005 forward and actual selling prices and MLS listings back to 1998 to chart market impacts in Port Colborne. His data showed a definite market downturn on real estate after 2000 when compared to the neighboring municipalities of Fort Erie and Welland.
Excerpted from www.wellandtribune.ca
In Is it Fabricated?, document examination expert witness Ronald N. Morris writes on what material can be on a copy in addition to the material on the original.
First, copies may include toner reproduction of scratches, trash, dirt, etc., found on the glass or drum. Based on the examination and evaluation of the copy, original being copied, and the copier, it may be possible to determine the source of these extraneous marks and features on the copy. Second, photocopies are not always able to reproduce:
a. All of the qualities and features of the original writing, i.e, delicate and lightly written strokes found in normal, natural writing; and occasionally found in patching and retouching of individual strokes, letters, fine tremor movements, stroke direction, substituted letters, etc. Notwithstanding the improvement in copier design, image processing, and reproduction, copiers still do not exactly reproduce all of these qualities and features. If the copy is a first generation copy, the copy quality is typically better than that of a second, third or fourth generation copy.
A settlement has been struck in a group of lawsuits filed by 190 people who claimed they were injured by working around asbestos and other dangerous materials during remodeling at the Salinas, CA, Courthouse. The plaintiffs – courthouse employees, attorneys, a judge and others who worked in the north courthouse wing – all will receive compensation under the omnibus settlement reached during the past few months, an attorney said Thursday. The large number of plaintiffs and defendants and the two-year duration of the construction work being scrutinized were complicating factors. Attorneys were just beginning their work with expert witnesses.
Terms of the settlement were confidential, though one estimate put the total around $5 million.
The settlement covers plaintiffs in three separate lawsuits, later rolled into a single case being heard by Judge Barry Hammer of San Luis Obispo County. The case was moved earlier this year to Santa Clara County at the request of the main defendants, a pair of construction management companies. The courthouse workers and other plaintiffs claimed they were exposed to asbestos, toxic dust and other hazardous materials that were released into the air by demolition work in 2005 and 2006.
In MACHINE TOOL GUARD RISK ASSESSMENT, equipment and machinery expert witness
Kenneth Knott, Ph.D., P.E., Product Liability Dynamics, Inc., writes:
There are three times in the life cycle of a machine tool when it is useful to be able to assess the level of risk associated with the machine guarding system. First, it helps the designer of a machine tool to predict reasonably foreseeable accidents and provide the best means of avoiding them. Secondly, to encourage operating managers and personnel promote safe working conditions. Finally, to help attorneys and expert witnesses, should litigation ensure as a result of an accident associated with the machine safe guarding system.
