Make sure your expert knows about this Rule before he starts his investigation. Particularly the sub-section on the content of an expert’s report. (Ref. 1) \u00a0Abiding by the Rule, as required by the judicial system, may increase the time spent gathering data – the forensic engineering investigation, and also the time spent analysing the data and writing the report. \u00a0Increased time means increased cost.<\/p>\n
This is possible – higher costs, for the small to medium size forensic investigations typical in Atlantic Canada and I suspect across the country. \u00a0Certainly when these investigations are complex.<\/p>\n
Experts are unlikely familiar with the Rules in the same way that lawyers are unlikely familiar with the expert’s field of practice.<\/p>\n
Engineers sometimes investigate a failure or an accident and report the cause but stop short of a detailed description of what they did. \u00a0Particularly the technical analysing and reasoning lest counsel’s eyes glaze over. \u00a0Many lawyers just want an answer – “and spare me the details”. \u00a0This might be the case when the engineer is retained as a consulting expert rather than a testifying expert.<\/p>\n
Knowing about the Rule and that it requires more comprehensive reporting doesn’t mean estimating the cost of the forensic investigation is any easier. (Ref. 2) \u00a0It just alerts counsel and the expert to the information that must be reported and that costs may be higher.<\/p>\n
1. Things leading to the opinion<\/strong><\/p>\n The expert’s report, according to the Rule, must include everything the expert regards as relevant to the expressed opinion. \u00a0This approximates a full engineering report.<\/p>\n Everything means\u00a0that the report contains all of the following information to support the opinion (I have expanded and added to the statements in the Rule according to how engineers investigate failures and accidents):<\/p>\n This is comprehensive reporting. \u00a0It takes time and it can be expensive particularly in a complex case.<\/p>\n 2. Things leading to a different opinion<\/strong><\/p>\n But the Rule also requires that the expert’s report draw attention to anything that could reasonably lead to a different conclusion. \u00a0If “drawing attention” to “anything” means identifying and investigating other interpretations of the data, or follow-up investigations, then including the listed information on these things takes time. \u00a0It may not mean exhaustive investigating and reporting but even a little more adds to the cost of an expert’s opinion..<\/p>\n Experts may not expect such comprehensive report requirements. It’s important to give an expert a heads-up at the time he is being retained and before he starts his investigation. \u00a0I was given a copy of this rule by counsel shortly after it was published –\u00a0after<\/em> <\/strong>I had carried out a forensic engineering investigation but before I had written my report. \u00a0It turned out okay but we like to know about such requirements\u00a0before<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0we start an investigation.<\/p>\n References<\/strong><\/p>\n Make sure your expert knows about this Rule before he starts his investigation. Particularly the sub-section on the content of an expert’s report. (Ref. 1) \u00a0Abiding by the Rule, as required by the judicial system, may increase the time spent … Continue reading \n
\n