Got Called To Be A Motorcycle Expert Witness!

[Maygoddess]

Boy, this makes me steam, and I of course declined!

Still, it reeks of no responsibility and trying to pin responsibility on someone else!:thumb down

What do you think, or am I off?

Doc Wong..would have been nice if you accepted and could have told them the client is a douche for suing the group leader!

But in all seriousness, this is quite sad for those of us that group ride with others..whether we plan them or just follow on them. Of course we do not know the full circumstances of this ride but in general, group rides are not that much more dangerous BECAUSE we are in a group. yes, riding with alot of other riders can add more dangerous element..BUT of all the group rides I have done, the incidents that occured could have happened if the person was riding solo or with 1-2 other people. Someone skidding on gravel in a tight turn, someone going too fast down an easy sweeper and probably target fixated on the corner and slid in a ditch and high sided. Running out of gas, etc..nothing that would have screamed "damn, this owuld not have happened if he was not group riding"

I hope this case is thrown out or lands in favor of the leader. This would set a bad precedent if followers could sue leaders for their bad judgement and riding.

 

[rodr]

You could volunteer as an expert witness for the other side.

 

[AbsolutEnduser]

Knowing Sue-happy Americans the ride leader is probably his best friend but he'd rather be a millionaire.

Oh.. a Canadian schnap!


( I think this situation is not black-and-white actually )

 

[DocWong]

The only way I could see the leader being partially in trouble is if everyone in the group heard the leader say... "Make sure you keep up."

Yea, from what I understood, there was no other unusual circumstance like that.

 

[Lester Green]

Doc Wong..would have been nice if you accepted and could have told them the client is a douche for suing the group leader!

in court a good attorney will not give you the latitude to elaborate. they will ask questions that require a yes or no answer. Doc would not be able to get the whole point across w/o being cut off.

 

[schteve]

That's total crap! Money hungry state bar exam transients. Sad that one of your participants actually is trying to make a case of it...

 

[sf250gto]

in court a good attorney will not give you the latitude to elaborate. they will ask questions that require a yes or no answer. Doc would not be able to get the whole point across w/o being cut off.

Exactly, Lester! No chance to express anything other than the hiring lawyer's desired point. With the cost of having your expertise dismissively questioned by the opposing attorney.

Doc, you're a doctor, you should know better than to get mixed up with lawyers and courts. Being an expert witness is not a civic duty.

 

[lam@barf]

In my admittedly limited experience riding a motorcycle is, at core, about personal responsibility and accountability. No one else's hand is or can be on the throttle or clutch, no one else's foot on the brake. How can anyone else be responsible for the rider's decisions?

I like the idea of you testifying for the other side, maybe you should contact them. Did the plaintiff's attorney give you anything in writing to prove they considered you an expert? If you did go to court it would be funny to hear him try to discredit you after that.

 

[rsrider]

Ok, how about this one?

Somebody done crashed their new Panigale.

 

[Carlo]

Doc, you're a doctor, you should know better than to get mixed up with lawyers and courts. Being an expert witness is not a civic duty.

He does know better. He refused to participate.

But what if it had been the defense attorney who'd asked? The other attorney would surely ask the same questions intended to draw the desired conclusion via simple yes/no asnwers.

 

[HappyHighwayman]

Oh.. a Canadian schnap!


( I think this situation is not black-and-white actually )

It's pretty black and white unless it can be demonstrated the lead rider convinced the follower that he was 100% safe following the lead rider.

The lead rider should just have every other member of the rider testify that they were aware of the rules and that they did not expect the leader to guarantee their safety.

 

[ASAblue]

Good for you Doc for declining...the attornies would keep you to "yes" or "no" answers and lead you down their own path with answers that they want...

I also think it is complete BS that someone would sue the lead rider...take responsiblity for your own actions people and leave the courts out of it...less jury duty for the rest of us...

 

[Archimedes]

You could volunteer as an expert witness for the other side.

Actually, no, because he's probably tainted by what he allowed the plaintiff's attorney to tell him about his approach to the case. He is now probably conflicted out of working for the other side. As soon as you're contacted to be an expert witness, you stop the lawyer and ask for all the background on the case, parties, claims, etc. and that's it. Then you determine if you have conflicts and/or which side you wish to be involved with before they tell you anything about their case, or you can easily wind up tainted.

While I'm as steamed about it as anyone, I'm not surprised by it at all. Everyone looks to blame others for their own failures. We see it in every aspect of society in nearly every country in the World these days. Why should the moto community be immune.

Simple rule. Friends don't let friends do grou...never mind.

 

[Archimedes]

in court a good attorney will not give you the latitude to elaborate. they will ask questions that require a yes or no answer. Doc would not be able to get the whole point across w/o being cut off.

He wouldn't even get to trial. His attorney has to disclose what he is going to testify to and he would be deposed ahead of trial. He can't just start taking new positions and discussing anything he wants at trial.

 

[weasel]

And this is why I ride alone or only with people I trust 100%

Never doing another group ride.

That ^

I’m suing the barf for lost wages. My commission would be 50% higher if I didn't have to barf during business hours


(Good on you Doc. )

 

[ob1ventura]

Maybe you should have accepted so you could tell it like it is.

exactly.

Was once subpoenaed by defense counsel to testify in federal court. The stupid atty never returned my calls or discussed the matter with me. Took time from work and rode down to Orange county to testify. He called me to the stand and his client lost due in great part to my testimony. Oh well. Hope he had a good errors and omissions policy.

 

[HappyHighwayman]

Actually, no, because he's probably tainted by what he allowed the plaintiff's attorney to tell him about his approach to the case. He is now probably conflicted out of working for the other side. As soon as you're contacted to be an expert witness, you stop the lawyer and ask for all the background on the case, parties, claims, etc. and that's it. Then you determine if you have conflicts and/or which side you wish to be involved with before they tell you anything about their case, or you can easily wind up tainted.

A non-lawyer not working for the plaintiff has no legal obligations unless he signed a non-disclosure agreement. He could go right to the defense and tell them everything the lawyer told them. You're not magically endowed with conflict of interest obligations because you declined to testify on someone's behalf. He's not a doctor or lawyer.

 

[Bondage]

I hope this case is thrown out or lands in favor of the leader. This would set a bad precedent if followers could sue leaders for their bad judgement and riding.

Legal precedent is a VERY dangerous thing... once it's proven that some lawyer with a bad conscience can get away with this sort of crap, entire droves of other lawyers are going to follow suit. The BAR association for some reason decided ethics were no longer important and they permit this gross lack of professionalism. If this does go through it would be reasonable to expect an increasing number of these kinds of suits and a very serious and inhospitable group-riding atmosphere. Just think of the plaintiff when you're signing a waiver

 

[OldMadBrit]

Maybe you should have accepted so you could tell it like it is.

This

Several years ago I was asked to be an expert witness for the plaintiff in what I said up front was a bogus patent case. They insisted, so I did and boy did I tell the truth and nothing but the truth

 

[OldMadBrit]

A non-lawyer not working for the plaintiff has no legal obligations unless he signed a non-disclosure agreement. He could go right to the defense and tell them everything the lawyer told them. You're not magically endowed with conflict of interest obligations because you declined to testify on someone's behalf. He's not a doctor or lawyer.

Oh snap