Government Threatens Retired Engineer With a Crime for Doing Math 39

[drawoh]

Institute for Justice [—] YouTube

I am Googling him here, and it appears he has presented himself as an expert witness. Do chemical engineers understand flooding, piping and stormwater?

--
JHG

 

[NorthCivil]

At least in my jurisdictions, huge emphasis is placed on "offering advice for services within your scope of expertise"

I'm no expert on pipes, but does an engineer who worked at a chemical plant understand civil works adequately to offer advice on, much less testify about them in court?

 

[GregLocock]

I would have thought it was up to the court, in a general sense, to decide whether an expert witness' credentials, credibility, and explanations, were sufficient. What did Feynman know about O rings? Even less than me I expect.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[IRstuff]

Feynman wasn't testifying in court, though.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[CWB1]

I'm no expert on pipes, but does an engineer who worked at a chemical plant understand civil works adequately to offer advice on, much less testify about them in court?

Does a civil engineer actually understand plumbing? Have they run much CFD or testing on complex systems? Have they analyzed failed parts to implement system improvements? No disrespect intended to anyone but the civil world isn't known for modern engineering practice, quite the opposite.

 

[LionelHutz]

What in the court decides an expert witness is an expert or that their credentials are suitable though? It's possible a judge could toss an expert witness with good cause, but in most cases I would think each side questions the expert witness and then the judge or jury decides what to believe same as any other witness.

The article linked by phamENG gives cases of perjury by the expert, which certainly could cause a verdict to be tossed out.

 

[MintJulep]

There is no possible public safety or health consequence of an expert witness getting something wrong (inadequate performance).

Therefore expert witness are not practicing engineering.

§ 89C-3. Definitions.

The following definitions apply in this Chapter:

(6) Practice of engineering. -

a. Any service or creative work, the adequate performance of which requires engineering education, training, and experience, in the application of special knowledge of the mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences to such services or creative work as consultation, investigation, evaluation, planning, and design of engineering works and systems, planning the use of land and water, engineering surveys, and the observation of construction for the purposes of assuring compliance with drawings and specifications, including the consultation, investigation, evaluation, planning, and design for either private or public use, in connection with any utilities, structures, buildings, machines, equipment, processes, work systems, projects, and industrial or consumer products or equipment of a mechanical, electrical, hydraulic, pneumatic or thermal nature, insofar as they involve safeguarding life, health or property, and including such other professional services as may be necessary to the planning, progress and completion of any engineering services.

A person shall be construed to practice or offer to practice engineering, within the meaning and intent of this Chapter, who practices any branch of the profession of engineering; or who, by verbal claim, sign, advertisement, letterhead, card, or in any other way represents the person to be a professional engineer, or through the use of some other title implies that the person is a professional engineer or that the person is licensed under this Chapter; or who holds the person out as able to perform, or who does perform any engineering service or work not exempted by this Chapter, or any other service designated by the practitioner which is recognized as engineering.

b. The term "practice of engineering" shall not be construed to permit the location, description, establishment or reestablishment of property lines or descriptions of land boundaries for conveyance. The term does not include the assessment of an underground storage tank required by applicable rules at closure or change in service unless there has been a discharge or release of the product from the tank.

 

[drawoh]

Does a civil engineer actually understand plumbing?

My college fluid mechanics text was Fluid Mechanics with Engineering Applications, Seventh Edition, by Robert L. Daugherty (mechanical and hydraulic engineer) and Joseph B. Franzini (civil engineer). Drainage from land and buildings is civil engineering.

--
JHG

 

[drawoh]

LionelHutz,

Unless the judge is qualified in whatever branch of engineering the expert witness practises, they have to examine credentials. Again, there is no substitute for peer review.

--
JHG

 

[TheTick]

What kind of engineer is God? Only a civil engineer would run a major sewerage project adjacent to a recreation area.

 

[LionelHutz]

drawoh - So, listens to the testimony and decides how much weight to give it when making the judgement.

I still don't think it was the court appearance that got him in trouble, it was the paper that he allegedly wrote.

 

[TheTick]

Nearly all of us here, PE or not, have a fairly good idea of the what, how, and why of PE-hood. Dude should have known better, or at least gotten a professional opinion before proceeding.

 

[NorthCivil]

Does a civil engineer actually understand plumbing? Have they run much CFD or testing on complex systems? Have they analyzed failed parts to implement system improvements? No disrespect intended to anyone but the civil world isn't known for modern engineering practice, quite the opposite.

As a civil/structural guy i will freely admit our field, compared to other engineering fields, is less raw science and more experience, practical knowledge and judgement. Which is a great reason why a chemical engineer from an industrial plant background probably isnt qualified to critique civil designs.

Just because I aced electro-magnetics in college, and use computers every day doesnt mean I'm well placed to judge circuit designs

 

[geotechguy1]

Since there's no substitute for peer review, perhaps we should ask the stone masons what their thoughts are on this newfangled engineering profession

 

[stevenal]

In my (non-expert) opinion, there are two completely distinct questions here that are getting muddied together. These are different questions decided by different arms of government at different times.
1) Is this an expert as determined by the Judiciary? Credentials can always be challenged by the opposition, who is free to offer their own expert in response.
2) Was the testimony given a violation of engineering law?

 

[CWB1]

As a civil/structural guy i will freely admit our field, compared to other engineering fields, is less raw science and more experience, practical knowledge and judgement.

IME people and firms vary more than industries. There's a ton of grunt-level design and process/documentation everywhere. Good/ethical engineers only rely on experience to find less-obvious failure modes. Hacks everywhere claim "experience" allows for shortcuts, skipping analysis or reviews. I've known CEs that would fit in great at any of my employers and were plenty capable. I've also known hacks both in CE and product development worlds that went to silly lengths to justify profit, the only real difference is the customer - public vs businesses, neither of which is acceptable to screw.

Design reviews IME are open-door to anyone/everyone from the shop floor trades to the financial folks in sales/marketing and engineers range from junior to chief, disciplines and niches are irrelevant. A good question is a good question from anybody, and many of the best come from non-engineers. When I am in one for a niche far removed from my own, my questions initially revolve around the completeness of analysis at a high level (what did they skip or miss?) then I like to ask about most likely failure modes if not highlighted. I find it rather disturbing when someone claims to know their design but cant rattle off failure modes and design weaknesses bc very few designs are optimized that well in reality.

 

[NorthCivil]

Design reviews IME are open-door to anyone/everyone

I agree. But a design review is not the same as court testimony. Just as you would not consult a sales team in court on engineering design, financial folks on engineering design, you should not consult a process engineer from a chemical plant for storm drainage designs and consider that appropriate expert testimony.

Unless you are an expert on floodplane designs (which this fellow is not, he is not a civil engineer), he shouldnt be testifying on the designs in court.

 

[SPDL310]

My two cents on the issue.

Professional engineering licensing statutes that attempt to limit the use of the term "engineer" beyond forbidding an individual or firm from advertising/selling design services to the public are overly broad. Going after individuals like Nutt and the traffic light guy from Oregon makes these boards seem petty and vindictive. In this case and the one in Oregon it seems to me that board is acting to silence public criticism of the decisions made by licensees of the board, which is not a good look for the board. Other professional licensing boards are not pulling this type of behavior. Colloquially the term doctor refers to a medical doctor. State medical boards are not going after other professions that refer to themselves as doctors such as veterinarians, detests and chiropractors. They also aren't going after Facebook moms shilling essential oils for every malady under the sun for practicing medicine without a license. If an individual is trained as an engineer and operated as an engineer for decades in an exempt industry claims that they are an engineer, as long as they are not offering restricted commercial services the board can go pound sand.

That being said I don't think Nutt will make a convincing expert witness, in fact I would think the opposing council would be positively giddy that the plaintiffs in this case have not retained other witnesses.
The cross examination would quickly establish Nutt's lack of experience in drainage design and civil engineering. The defendant could then take the stand and show his expertise to me much greater than Nutt's. The only reason I would expect that defendants would object to Nutt's testimony is that their omission is so glaring that simple calculations that even a layman can fully understand point it out.

 

[CWB1]

ust as you would not consult a sales team in court on engineering design, financial folks on engineering design, you should not consult a process engineer from a chemical plant for storm drainage designs and consider that appropriate expert testimony.
Unless you are an expert on floodplane designs (which this fellow is not, he is not a civil engineer)

If I took that attitude I'd prob have been run out of industry as a junior engineer and certainly not had half the successes I enjoyed. As to Nutt not being a CE, how do you know he doesn't have relevant CE experience? I wouldn't be surprised to see a Chem or other (uncivil? ) E in operations designing containment, drainage, pumping, or other similar systems.

 

[IRstuff]

As to Nutt not being a CE, how do you know he doesn't have relevant CE experience?

https://ij.org/utility/case-print/?case-name=174071[/URL]]From Wayne’s perspective, it was a simple calculation that just required him to pick up the book Cameron Hydraulic Data off his bookshelf and do a little simple math—or, at least, math that was pretty simple for someone who had been doing this his whole life.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[geotechguy1]

If having to look something up in a textbook disqualifies someone as an expert, I have bad news for the entire engineering profession.