I’ve thought for a while that well written forensic engineering reports are going to take on a greater importance in light of Rule 55 in Nova Scotia and possibly similar rules in other jurisdictions.\u00a0 And counsel can help get these well written reports by “cross-examining” draft copies (see following).<\/p>\n
Not that such reports weren’t important before.\u00a0 Then, however,\u00a0counsel had an opportunity in direct and cross-examination to discover the evidence and go through the reasoning if it wasn’t well presented in reports.\u00a0 But discoveries cost more than well written reports.\u00a0 And while the cost of reports are difficult to estimate (Ref. 1), the cost of discoveries are more difficult.<\/p>\n
I’ve thought recently, after posting a blog on the steps in forensic engineering investigation (Ref. 2), that it should be fairly easy to produce a well written report.\u00a0 At least\u00a0to produce the\u00a0data and evidence gathered during the investigation, minus the analysis and\u00a0interpretation, and the reasoning to an opinion.<\/p>\n
A good report can simply consist of describing what took place chronologically during each step in the forensic engineering investigation.\u00a0 This would also echo the stepped\u00a0civil litigation process.\u00a0 To some extent we think in a sequential, stepped way\u00a0as well.<\/p>\n
Factual reporting<\/strong><\/p>\n It might even\u00a0be of interest and advantageous to counsel to request a “factual” report initially – essentially stop the chronological reporting short of the analytical steps.\u00a0 I’m quite certain I’ve read of this approach being taken occasionally in civil cases in the U.S.\u00a0 In engineering,\u00a0it is definitely an approach taken often enough in some disciplines.\u00a0 For example, the separate “factual” and “interpretative” reports that are requested on the geotechnical engineering investigation of\u00a0foundation soil conditions at new construction sites.<\/p>\n I know I outlined\u00a0an approach\u00a0along these lines as a means of\u00a0reporting to counsel several years ago when setting up my website (Ref. 3).\u00a0 I was echoing what\u00a0I\u00a0saw\u00a0and read of being done in forensic engineering at the\u00a0time.\u00a0 I noted then three different ways of\u00a0reporting:<\/p>\n The results from the easily identifiable steps in forensic engineering investigation – except perhaps for the occurence and nature of the unknown, follow-up investigations, can be reported for each step in a simple, factual format:<\/p>\n You went to the site after reading the documents.\u00a0 Why did\u00a0you go to the site?\u00a0 What did you learn?\u00a0 You cut the concrete\u00a0sample apart in the laboratory.\u00a0 Why did you cut the sample apart; what was the purpose?\u00a0 What did you learn?<\/p>\n Simple declarative sentences, simple words, and short paragraphs manage this type of basically factual reporting.<\/p>\n When there are a number of different investigations making up the whole this simple, factual format communicates effectively.<\/p>\n Interpretative, analytical reporting<\/strong><\/p>\n Reporting does get more demanding – and separates the quite literate expert from the boys, when some analysis of\u00a0the evidence is carried out at each step and tentative conclusions drawn.\u00a0 And then interpreting, explaining, and presenting\u00a0the analysis\u00a0in non-technical terms so that judge, jury, and counsel can understand.\u00a0 Reporting gets far more demanding when all the data must be pulled together, analysed, and an opinion formulated, and explaining the reasoning underlying the opinion.<\/p>\n Simple declarative sentences, simple words, and short paragraphs can pretty well manage this type of\u00a0analytical, easily defended reporting as well, if the forensic engineer knows how to\u00a0write.<\/p>\n Unfortunately, not all experienced engineers know how to write, and there is not a lot of good material and\u00a0guidelines out there specifically for forensic engineers\u00a0– we like to examine and measure things, take stuff apart, analyse data, and talk in jargon.<\/p>\n Fortunately, there is\u00a0a resource for\u00a0encouraging forensic engineers to take an interest in presenting their data and analyses well.\u00a0 And counsel can help.\u00a0 There is a text, “Writing and defending your expert report; the step-by-step guide with models” – 404 pages long, that addresses the topic (Ref. 4).\u00a0 There is considerable emphasis in the book on producing a report that can be defended under cross-examination at discovery and trial –\u00a0in the U.S. adversarial system.\u00a0 I figure if a report can stand up to the U.S. system it is likely to be\u00a0fairly well written.\u00a0 Counsel can help by “cross-examining” their expert’s report before accepting them.<\/p>\n References<\/strong><\/p>\n I’ve thought for a while that well written forensic engineering reports are going to take on a greater importance in light of Rule 55 in Nova Scotia and possibly similar rules in other jurisdictions.\u00a0 And counsel can help get these … Continue reading \n
\n
\n