Expert Witness Blog

In the case of Lehmann v. Louisville Ladder Inc., 610 F. Supp. 3d 667 (E.D. Pa. 2022), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania addressed critical issues concerning product liability and the admissibility of expert testimony in a lawsuit stemming from a scaffold-related injury. The involvement of a Ladders & Scaffolds Expert Witness was central to the court’s analysis.

Case Background

Plaintiff Michael Lehmann sustained injuries after falling from a scaffold manufactured by Louisville Ladder Inc. He filed a lawsuit alleging that the scaffold was defectively designed and lacked adequate warnings, leading to his accident and subsequent injuries. Lehmann’s claims were grounded in theories of strict liability and negligence, asserting that the design flaws and insufficient warnings rendered the scaffold unreasonably dangerous for users.

In the landmark case of Jones v. Kaney, [2011] UKSC 13, the United Kingdom Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether expert witnesses could be held liable for professional negligence in relation to their participation in legal proceedings. This case significantly impacted the legal landscape concerning the accountability of expert witnesses, including those specializing in personal injury cases.

Case Background

In 2001, Paul Wynne Jones was involved in a road traffic accident and subsequently pursued a personal injury claim, alleging both physical and psychological harm. His legal team engaged Dr. Sue Kaney, a consultant clinical psychologist, to provide expert testimony supporting his claim of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Initially, Dr. Kaney’s assessment aligned with Jones’s assertions.

In the case of Bray v. Bi-State Development Corporation, 949 S.W.2d 93 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997), the Missouri Court of Appeals addressed the admissibility of expert testimony concerning lighting conditions in a premises liability lawsuit. The involvement of a Lighting & Illumination Expert Witness was central to the court’s analysis.

Case Background

The plaintiff, Bray, sustained injuries after tripping over a curb in a parking garage operated by Bi-State Development Corporation. She alleged that inadequate lighting contributed to her fall and filed a negligence claim against the defendant. The defense contended that the lighting was sufficient and that Bray’s negligence was the sole cause of her injuries.

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 sprawling multidistrict litigation of In Re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, S.D.N.Y. 2001, the role and admissibility of expert testimony—particularly that of an Investment Banking Expert Witness—became a focal point as federal courts grappled with complex allegations of securities fraud and market manipulation by leading investment banks.

Background and Parties

This litigation consolidated over 860 securities class actions brought by plaintiffs against more than 200 publicly traded companies and approximately 40 major investment banks. Plaintiffs alleged that these investment banks, acting as underwriters, engaged in unlawful practices to manipulate the prices of newly issued stocks, thereby violating federal securities laws. The cases were centralized before Judge Shira A. Scheindlin in the Southern District of New York for coordinated pretrial proceedings due to the commonality of factual and legal issues.

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 recent California Court of Appeal decision, In re Marriage of Lietz, 2024, the court addressed the pivotal role of the Appraisal & Valuation Expert Witness in the division of marital property, specifically the valuation of the family home during dissolution proceedings.

Background and Parties

Diana and Andreas Lietz were parties to a marital dissolution action in which the primary dispute centered on the value of their family residence. Both parties retained appraisal experts to provide opinions on the fair market value of the property. Diana’s expert appraised the home at $1.1 million, while Andreas’s expert valued it at $1,020,000. The difference in valuation was significant, as it directly impacted the division of assets and the financial outcome for each party.

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.