Articles

TASA ID: 4009

In many product liability cases there is something missing from an existing warning and instruction - some safety information which arguably the plaintiff did not know at the time of the accident. It may be relatively straight forward to figure out whether or not the existing warning was defective by reference to items like the ANSI Z353 Standards, signal word, color, conspicuity, language, grade level word choice, whether or not the warning adequately explains the hazard and the consequences of not heeding the warning and whether or not the warning explains what to do to avoid the hazard.  All of these are items which in general make a warning more likely to be noticed, read, understood and heeded.  That is exactly why the standards and authorities require them.  

TASA ID: 4009

Jurors in product liability warnings cases strive to answer these two questions: 

1. Was the warning on this product defective?
2. Was a defect in this warning a proximate cause of this personal injury accident?

Plaintiffs do not prevail unless jurors provide a “yes” answer to both questions.  The kinds of arguments and the evidence presented for each of these questions are vastly different from each other.

TASA ID: 4298

Introduction

The author is a forensic engineer with a Ph.D in biomechanical engineering and is licensed in several states as a structural and professional engineer. The author is employed by Packer Engineering Group, a firm that investigates accidents and injuries, and provides expert opinions to their clients as well as in a court of law. 

Packer was contacted because of a lawsuit involving an injury on a mechanical bull. The firm was requested to investigate reported injuries, validate the injured individual’s account of the accident and the cause of his injuries, and issue a written report.

This report was, therefore, written as a response to the lawsuit. Details were redacted and replaced with general terms for anonymity. 

TASA ID: 1813

There are two styles of written appraisal reports: narrative and form (U.R.A.R.).  This article only deals with narrative reports.

While your focus is on proving that a bad appraisal caused or impacted a damages claim - and not on violations of The Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (U.S.P.A.P.), due to a recent major change - you need a brief understanding of U.S.P.A.P. prior to January 1, 2016, where there were three types of written appraisal reports and now there are only two. 

TASA ID: 2434

Neuropsychologists can now demonstrate that the vast majority of individuals quickly recover from the effects of mild traumatic brain injury.

This expert, Ph.D., ABPP, is a licensed and board-certified clinical psychologist and practicing neuropsychologist. For more than years he has worked as a psychologist in administration, education, research, and service delivery.  He is licensed in California, Hawaii and Nevada and is presently the consulting neuropsychologist in Modesto, California.