• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

Got Called To Be A Motorcycle Expert Witness!

Entoptic said:
I think you should have been an expert witness and when in court explained that the rider who crashed did it on their own accord. The attorney is looking for someone to go with the story, if it isn't you then he will find someone else. It was your oppertunity to shine!
Click to expand...

another one who hasn't got a clue on how it works...:laughing
 
Should've at least got plaintiff's name so we can find the fucker...
 
HappyHighwayman said:
Did he use a "Daubert standard" motion?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daubert_standard
Click to expand...

No, Daubert is a totally different issue. That relates to challenges to the admissability of an expert's testimony based on whether their testimony is relevant to the case and whether it's reliable. The latter is the big issue that's come to fore in recent years, i.e., that people testifying as 'experts' aren't really experts in the field and therefore their testimony is unreliable. For a long time the courts gave a lot of leeway to the definition of an expert. The Daubert ruling changed that.

What I'm referring to is a simple tainting of an expert witness due to the disclosure of information to them.
 
HappyHighwayman said:
So I asked my lawyer buddy...his response, verbatim:



So looks like I'm right that they're not technically "tainted" but Archimedes is more accurate in that the end result would be the same. Regardless I think the plaintiff's lawyer in this case isn't that smart ;)
Click to expand...

Two different issues. The Daubert motion would be filed on the basis that Doc was not an 'expert' as defined by the Court, not based on information disclosure. The tainting issue is something totally different. And my comments were related to the possibility of tainting. Whether he is or not would depend on exactly what was disclosed to him, so I'm not sure how your attorney buddy could draw any conclusions based on the limited information that is disclosed in this thread. If Doc allowed the plaintiff's attorney to disclose signficant elements of his case strategy to him, information that would be deemed prejudicial to the plaintiff if disclosed to the defendant, he sure as heck would be conflicted out of testifying as an expert for the defendant.

I've had this scenario play out in a litigation context and I was deemed tainted and precluded from testifying on behalf of my client. Talk to anybody in the business of litigation support and they will tell you the same thing. All conflicts must be cleared before you even begin talking facts, strategies, etc. with counsel.

On a related note, being an expert witness really sucks. Takes a certain type of personality to really enjoy that work.
 
Lester Green said:
another one who hasn't got a clue on how it works...:laughing
Click to expand...

if in your opinion it cannot be answered with a simple yes or no, say so and ask if the question can be rephrased.

"The answer to this hypothetical question is….”


I can haz bar cert now right?
 
ob1ventura said:
Unfortunately almost always the best liars win.
Click to expand...

Fixed.

Years ago, I had a very successful, good old boy Houston lawyer (think Rusty Hardin type) interviewing me about expert testimony. In the meeting, he described the case as '...they'll get their liar up there, then I'll get my liar (me) up there..." I immediately told him thanks for considering me, got up and walked straight out of his office.
 
I'm sure CALTRANS and some pigs are really at fault here
 
Archimedes said:
Fixed.
Years ago, I had a very successful, good old boy Houston lawyer (think Rusty Hardin type) interviewing me about expert testimony. In the meeting, he described the case as '...they'll get their liar up there, then I'll get my liar (me) up there..." I immediately told him thanks for considering me, got up and walked straight out of his office.
Click to expand...

Man, that stuff just depresses me. <sigh>
 
Archimedes said:
Fixed.

Years ago, I had a very successful, good old boy Houston lawyer (think Rusty Hardin type) interviewing me about expert testimony. In the meeting, he described the case as '...they'll get their liar up there, then I'll get my liar (me) up there..." I immediately told him thanks for considering me, got up and walked straight out of his office.
Click to expand...

:applause Good for you Archimedes! It's getting hard to find people with principles. That move cost you but you can look in the mirror.
 
Entoptic said:
if in your opinion it cannot be answered with a simple yes or no, say so and ask if the question can be rephrased.

"The answer to this hypothetical question is….”


I can haz bar cert now right?
Click to expand...

you've never been on the stand in front of the judge have you? :rofl

BTW, traffic court doesn't count sparkles...
 
Last edited:
Well, I certainly hoped I gave him enough of an earful to discourage him/her. I talked about how it's impossible to set an ideal pace for all riders in any group.

What is too fast for one is too slow for another. I told him/her that the standard in almost all group riding is for each rider to go at a pace that they feel is safe. Every rider has a different capacity for safety and that only the rider themselves can judge that.

I don't think this will go anywhere as the idea sounds too ridiculous and doesn't deter me in any way with the rides I lead.

Doc

monstermonster said:
Doc--

There are serious $ to be had in expert work. You just let your conscience interfere. Tisk tisk. :twofinger

Seriously though, it might make you feel better to know that some (many?) attorneys take an expert's advice seriously, and are not just looking for someone who will take $ to say what the laywer wants. So you may have had an impact just by telling him how it is. Besides, if the lawyer gets an earful from you and/or other potential experts, he may not get a different riding expert. Or he may get some unqualified, unbelievable schmuck. Either way, it may significantly decrease the value and viability of his case.



There are plenty of those sorts of suits. <sigh>
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Nope, not conflicted. If asked, assuming I'm not "tainted," I'd testify in a second for the other side. Of course me talking about it in the forum I'm sure has tainted me totally. Ha Ha, I'm "tainted!"

Archimedes said:
(snip) He is now probably conflicted out of working for the other side. (snip)

Simple rule. Friends don't let friends do grou...never mind.
Click to expand...
 
why dont you try and contact the defendant to be an expert consultant on their behalf?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top