Expert Witness Blog
In the case of Stewart v. Gruber, the testimony of a Structural Engineering Expert Witness was central to the plaintiffs’ attempt to prove claims of professional negligence and breach of contract. However, procedural issues ultimately led to the exclusion of their expert, resulting in dismissal of the case before trial.
Background of the Case
The plaintiffs, Mr. and Mrs. Stewart, hired architect William Gruber to design and oversee the construction of a multi-unit apartment complex. After the project was completed, the Stewarts alleged that the building suffered from multiple structural issues, including uneven flooring, cracked walls, and misaligned framing. They claimed that these issues were due to design and oversight failures by the architect.
The Stewarts filed suit against Gruber, alleging that he breached the contract by providing negligent design services that fell below the standard of care expected of a professional in the field. Their legal strategy depended heavily on demonstrating that the design defects were directly caused by Gruber’s professional negligence—a determination that required expert analysis and testimony.
Role of the Structural Engineering Expert Witness
To support their claims, the Stewarts intended to rely on a Structural Engineering Expert Witness. This expert was expected to provide a detailed evaluation of the architectural plans and completed construction, and to compare Gruber’s work to accepted engineering standards.
Key responsibilities of the expert included:
-
Reviewing architectural and engineering plans to identify any deviations from standard structural design practices.
-
Inspecting the property to assess how the physical structure aligned with the original plans and whether any structural problems were related to design flaws.
-
Providing expert testimony on whether the architect’s performance met the standard of care required by professionals in the structural and architectural engineering field.
The expert had prepared a preliminary analysis, which reportedly identified several areas where Gruber’s design may have contributed to the structural issues experienced by the Stewarts.
Court Proceedings and Findings
Despite the critical role the Structural Engineering Expert Witness was to play, the plaintiffs failed to submit the expert report by the court-ordered deadline for disclosures. They also missed the deadline to formally designate their expert, which is required under civil procedure rules.
Gruber’s legal team filed a motion to exclude the expert based on these procedural lapses. The court agreed, ruling that the failure to comply with the scheduling order was not harmless and significantly prejudiced the defense, which had no opportunity to review the expert’s findings or depose the expert before trial.
Without their expert, the Stewarts had no way to establish the applicable professional standard of care or demonstrate how Gruber’s conduct deviated from that standard. As a result, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Gruber, dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims entirely.
Legal Significance
This case highlights the critical importance of expert testimony in construction defect and professional negligence litigation. A Structural Engineering Expert Witness is often essential in explaining to the court and jury how industry standards apply to a specific case and whether a defendant’s actions or omissions fell short of those standards.
Equally important is the lesson on procedural compliance. Missing deadlines for expert disclosure—even when a strong case exists—can result in exclusion of key testimony and dismissal of claims. Courts take scheduling orders seriously, and failure to comply can have significant consequences.
Conclusion
Stewart v. Gruber serves as a cautionary tale in construction litigation. While the plaintiffs may have had a credible claim supported by engineering analysis, their failure to follow court procedures led to the exclusion of their Structural Engineering Expert Witness and ultimately the loss of their case. The ruling underscores both the indispensable role of expert testimony in technical cases and the necessity of meeting all procedural requirements to ensure that testimony is heard.