Forensic investigation of the cause of a failure or accident in the built environment doesn’t always require an exhaustive investigation of conditions at a site.\u00a0 And civil litigation doesn’t always need to bear the attendant higher costs.\u00a0 Sometimes but not always.<\/p>\n
There is a point at which the cost of the data obtained and the time required to\u00a0get it outweigh the benefit of the data, the increased certainty of the opinion and the quicker resolution of a dispute.<\/p>\n
The answer is early involvement of an expert in\u00a0consultation with counsel<\/em>.\u00a0 And the two working together to identify the\u00a0key technical issue(s) in a case.\u00a0 It works best when counsel seeks to understand these issues early and rises to his\u00a0responsibility to explain them to the judicial system. (Ref 1)<\/p>\n I’ve had some cases that settled in a heart beat after the investigation of a single, simple technical issue.\u00a0 One case settled in four months after 11 years of litigation.\u00a0 There have been other investigations\u00a0that have been longer and more expensive.<\/p>\n There is a judgement call on the necessary level of investigation.\u00a0 Should this technical issue be checked out or that evidence followed – as in the seemingly cast-in-stone edict, “Follow the evidence”?\u00a0 The call is best made by an experienced expert and a suitably informed counsel.\u00a0 The cost of civil litigation\u00a0is often less\u00a0when this is done wisely and\u00a0well.<\/p>\n It also sometimes helps if counsel visits the site and “gets his hands dirty and mud on his boots” –\u00a0sees what’s out there and some of the investigative work being done and why. (Refs 2, 3)\u00a0 I know of one slip and fall accident that was cinched because counsel came to the site, sat down\u00a0and watched me work.\u00a0 In this case, carrying out two quite unusual tasks that carried the day.<\/p>\n Cutting costs can’t be done in a cavalier manner.\u00a0 I’ve seen this happen too and the\u00a0injured party likely get the short end of the stick in one case.\u00a0 Litigation is expensive, and reliable, expert data costs money, but it can be managed. \u00a0It doesn’t always need to be exhaustive.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n These thoughts came to mind a few days ago when I was reviewing the principles governing Phase II\u00a0ESAs (environmental site assessments) as\u00a0given in\u00a0an ASTM standard.\u00a0(Ref.\u00a04)\u00a0These environmental assessments have strict requirements.\u00a0 I know, I’ve done them – but there\u00a0are some “that do not … require an exhaustive assessment”.\u00a0\u00a0 When I read that in the standard, I was reminded: That’s the way it is in\u00a0forensic engineering investigation.<\/p>\n References<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Forensic investigation of the cause of a failure or accident in the built environment doesn’t always require an exhaustive investigation of conditions at a site.\u00a0 And civil litigation doesn’t always need to bear the attendant higher costs.\u00a0 Sometimes but not … Continue reading \n