vi. How courts assess expert evidence
Evidence is rarely ruled inadmissible solely because the expert lacks formal registration as a surveyor or engineer. Instead, the court assesses the soundness of the scientific methodology and the adequacy of the analysis.
The court is not bound to accept an expert’s opinion, even where that opinion is not contradicted by another expert.
However, the findings of an SJE are often highly influential. In some cases, the SJE’s factual observations may be treated as effectively binding on the parties, although the parties may still advance legal arguments on liability.
The court looks for patterns in the data and scientific explanations that are consistent with the factual evidence, such as contemporaneous photographs and correspondence. Expert evidence is more persuasive when it explains how the test results, physical conditions, photographs, and chronology fit together.
The court may reject expert evidence that is considered “pedantic”, “reverse-engineered”, or based on arbitrary assumptions that fail to account for building realities, such as water’s ability to travel horizontally along weaknesses in concrete. For instance, experts who fail to consider essential background data, such as weather conditions, or who provide “bare assertions” without detailed analysis, are likely to carry less weight with the court.
Read Whole Topics
Print
Email
