I had a good talk with a client\u00a0recently\u00a0about investigating the cause of three personal injury accidents.\u00a0 And what’s possible,\u00a0in the\u00a0case of one,\u00a0when there’s not enough time to thoroughly investigate\u00a0the accident to the standards of civil procedure rules governing experts.\u00a0 We both learned something.<\/p>\n
I was reminded<\/strong> that an experienced tradesman can look\u00a0at\u00a0a structure and report if construction is similar to what he\u00a0has seen on other sites.\u00a0 He would not\u00a0comment on the adequacy of design and construction, which would be outside his area of expertise, just what he saw and\u00a0it’s similarity. \u00a0This would be valuable.<\/p>\n Also, that an expert could be retained as a consulting expert<\/em> and do a scaled back investigation consistent with the time available rather than as\u00a0a testifying expert<\/em>\u00a0who must\u00a0meet the requirements of civil procedure rules. (Ref. 1)<\/p>\n An initial hypothesis as to cause can be based on the data available, as\u00a0limited as that might be.\u00a0 That’s how science works.\u00a0 For example, counsel’s description of what happened, reading some\u00a0documents, and\/or a\u00a0cursory\u00a0site examination.\u00a0 It’s important to remember<\/em>, however, that an initial idea\u00a0about cause is not necessarily conclusive and could change with a detailed investigation.\u00a0(Ref. 1) \u00a0Sometimes quite significantly.\u00a0 The tyranny of the obvious can cause grief.<\/p>\n It’s\u00a0the same in many applied scientific fields.\u00a0 For example, in medicine where the final diagnosis and successful treatment plan\u00a0– following the SOAP process, might be quite different from the initial diagnosis and plan. (S<\/strong>ubjective gathering of data\/evidence, O<\/strong>bjective gathering, A<\/strong>ssessment of data, P<\/strong>lan)\u00a0 (Ref. 2)<\/p>\n (Remembering<\/em> is important because too often experts are retained after a case has been taken and the final technical conclusion\u00a0might not support\u00a0counsel’s assessed merit of the case)<\/p>\n My client<\/strong> learned that a forensic investigation takes time\u00a0if\u00a0it’s\u00a0to\u00a0meet the strict requirements of civil procedure rules governing experts, like Rule 55 in Nova Scotia.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n I was asked by my client\u00a0if I could investigate a\u00a0catastrophic failure resulting in personal injury and issue an expert’s\u00a0report a few\u00a0days later.\u00a0 It would be difficult to\u00a0examine the property after that.<\/p>\n I couldn’t, of course, and meet the requirements of Rule 55.\u00a0\u00a0A few\u00a0days\u00a0might be just enough time to do preliminary<\/em> work like read documents on the case and\u00a0visually examine the site.<\/p>\n There is time to investigate the\u00a0other two accidents discussed with my client.\u00a0 I know the expertise needed\u00a0for the major accident.\u00a0 It appears clear cut.\u00a0 That for the more minor accident – still serious and painful, is less clear but will possibly involve four areas of expertise: Design, construction, a trade and construction inspection.<\/p>\n References<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" I had a good talk with a client\u00a0recently\u00a0about investigating the cause of three personal injury accidents.\u00a0 And what’s possible,\u00a0in the\u00a0case of one,\u00a0when there’s not enough time to thoroughly investigate\u00a0the accident to the standards of civil procedure rules governing experts.\u00a0 We … Continue reading \n