I was retained to investigate the cause of an accident involving the plaintiff using one of his tools.\u00a0 People have been killed using this type of tool, it’s that dangerous.\u00a0\u00a0The plaintiff believed there was a defect\u00a0in the tool.\u00a0 Graphic photographs of his injuries would certainly lead you to believe\u00a0that –\u00a0an initial hypothesis.<\/p>\n
I was asked to peer review a report by another\u00a0engineer and to examine the tool for wear sufficient to cause the accident.<\/p>\n
The other engineer reported test-using the tool but, as evident in his\u00a0report, not\u00a0during a re-enactment of the accident.\u00a0 He\u00a0found\u00a0a few\u00a0things wrong with the tool but nothing to suggest\u00a0it was defective.<\/p>\n
I was surprised that the engineer did not re-enact the accident considering his stated years of experience investigating accidents.<\/p>\n
I reviewed the report, researched howhis\u00a0 the tool operated and examined the exterior.<\/p>\n
I video taped\u00a0the plaintiff re-enacting the accident and recorded his explanation of how he was injured.\u00a0 I had him do this three times just to be sure and video taped his demonstration\u00a0from different angles.<\/p>\n
Evidence from the\u00a0video and the interview was quite revealing as to cause but questions arose when this evidence was considered in light of\u00a0evidence from the graphic pictures of\u00a0the plaintiff’s\u00a0injuries.<\/p>\n
I retained a\u00a0tool repairman to dismantle the tool and visually examine the interior\u00a0surfaces for wear and defects.\u00a0 He found nothing.<\/p>\n
At this point in my investigation:<\/p>\n
The tie-breaker – justifying\u00a0modifying\u00a0the initial hypothesis on cause –\u00a0were comments by the plaintiff\u00a0during his interview on how he was using the tool coupled with how the tool\u00a0operated.\u00a0 Turns out he was using\u00a0the tool\u00a0in the most dangerous way, but\u00a0one of several ways it could be used.\u00a0 Also turns out that the material he said he was using didn’t exist as he described, except as a special order.\u00a0 A similar, readily available material suited to the job he was doing could explain the contradiction raised by the\u00a0graphic pictures.<\/p>\n
To summarize the tie-breaking bullets:<\/p>\n
Based on the evidence, I modified my initial hypothesis that a defect caused the accident to believing that the plaintiff caused the accident by\u00a0his actions\u00a0when using\u00a0the tool in the most dangerous way.<\/p>\n
***<\/p>\n
A spoiler?\u00a0 As noted above, the plaintiff reported using the tool in the most dangerous way.\u00a0 But, on being retained, I was given the tool\u00a0rigged to be used in one of the safest ways.\u00a0\u00a0This might have spoiled my modified hypothesis, but didn’t\u00a0– the tool had passed through at least four sets of hands by the time I got it.<\/p>\n
My client decided against further forensic investigation.<\/p>\n
***<\/p>\n
Design, manufacture\/construction and maintenance\/repair are three main stages in development and use of an item in the built environment,\u00a0like a tool.\u00a0 My investigation covered maintenance\/repair when assessing if the tool in this incident was defective.<\/p>\n
Retaining experts in design and manufacture to examine the tool would be a stage in a forensic investigation like this.\u00a0 However,\u00a0taking this step would\u00a0not be justified considering the strength of the modified hypothesis and the cost of experts in design and manufacture.<\/p>\n
My investigation several<\/em> years<\/em> after the incident\u00a0cost money.\u00a0 It would have cost less, as would the civil litigation in general, if I could have\u00a0interviewed the plaintiff several<\/em>\u00a0days<\/em> after the incident,\u00a0or after my client took the case, and video taped him re-enacting the accident. \u00a0I’m certain\u00a0the evidence from such simple tasks would have cast the merit of the case and the worth of the file in a quite different light.<\/p>\n Case take-aways<\/span><\/p>\n My take-away\u00a0from this case is\u00a0to get\u00a0my iPhone out of my\u00a0back pocket and video tape a re-enactment of an accident ASAP and\u00a0have\u00a0the victim describe\u00a0it.\u00a0 It might be rough – iPhone\u00a0forensic video –\u00a0but this quick and dirty stuff can pay dividends in a forensic engineering investigation.<\/p>\n My client’s take-away? Possibly an old saw – retain an expert early\u00a0preferably during the merit assessment stage or a few days\u00a0<\/em>afterwards\u00a0and save money on civil litigation.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" I was retained to investigate the cause of an accident involving the plaintiff using one of his tools.\u00a0 People have been killed using this type of tool, it’s that dangerous.\u00a0\u00a0The plaintiff believed there was a defect\u00a0in the tool.\u00a0 Graphic photographs … Continue reading