jeffandmike
Civil/Environmental
Everyone,
I've been practicing as a forensic engineering expert witness largely related to residential buildings for about ten years. I was hoping to obtain some level of consensus on how you felt about the role of interviews (i.e., with owners, tenants, etc.) in the course of performing forensic engineering investigations for reported building damages.
Specifically, do you think interview(s) during such investigations (pick one):
1) should be obtained, if possible (assuming there is someone to interview), regardless of whether or not the witness is under oath/on the record, and they fall (are required) within the standard of care?
2) are generally a good idea to get a better understanding of the background surrounding the incident/claim, but probably aren't required by the standard of care?
3) aren't required by the standard of care and shouldn't be obtained unless the witness is under oath/on the record? Witnesses often change their story after consulting with their attorney.
I realize there are other options than those listed above; however, these are the three most common opinions on the subject that I've observed. Aside from the engineering aspects of this decision, keep in mind that there are also business aspects. Such investigations are typically expected to be completed in a relatively quick fashion (say 15, and maybe up to 30, calendar days from the date of visiting the site). In my experience, they also infrequently make it to depositions (say less than 5% of the time). Of those that make it to depositions, they infrequently make it to trial (say 10% - 20% of the 5%).
Thanks in advance for your responses.
I've been practicing as a forensic engineering expert witness largely related to residential buildings for about ten years. I was hoping to obtain some level of consensus on how you felt about the role of interviews (i.e., with owners, tenants, etc.) in the course of performing forensic engineering investigations for reported building damages.
Specifically, do you think interview(s) during such investigations (pick one):
1) should be obtained, if possible (assuming there is someone to interview), regardless of whether or not the witness is under oath/on the record, and they fall (are required) within the standard of care?
2) are generally a good idea to get a better understanding of the background surrounding the incident/claim, but probably aren't required by the standard of care?
3) aren't required by the standard of care and shouldn't be obtained unless the witness is under oath/on the record? Witnesses often change their story after consulting with their attorney.
I realize there are other options than those listed above; however, these are the three most common opinions on the subject that I've observed. Aside from the engineering aspects of this decision, keep in mind that there are also business aspects. Such investigations are typically expected to be completed in a relatively quick fashion (say 15, and maybe up to 30, calendar days from the date of visiting the site). In my experience, they also infrequently make it to depositions (say less than 5% of the time). Of those that make it to depositions, they infrequently make it to trial (say 10% - 20% of the 5%).
Thanks in advance for your responses.
