|
Over the past year,
I have had at least two “ethical” conflicts with
attorney clients. Both situations probably
arose because of the differences in the attorney’s
approach to a problem/situation and the engineer’s
approach to a problem. After reading this
short article, I would appreciate your email input!
I have provided an email link at the end of the
article for your convenience and input.
During a recent assignment, I was conducting an
investigation, and as part of that investigation, I
had requested to visit the company shop facility. I
was introduced to the manager of maintenance, and
was told by the attending attorney, “Ask Mr.
__________ for anything that will help you”. I had
previously conducted my non-destructive laboratory
testing consisting of visual examination and
scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The plaintiff
in this case had chosen NOT to have an expert
present, since all work was to be non-destructive.
There are two unique, basic ways in which this type
of failure can occur, A or B. The scanning electron
microscopic examination absolutely and unequivocally
proved that the accident occurred because of B. The
B failure was totally and completely the fault of a
co-defendant. The preliminary findings of the SEM
examination had been related to the attorney who had
employed my services.
In talking to the maintenance manager, I was told
that it was standard practice at this maintenance
facility to perform a certain function in a way
which violates standards published by governing
standards agencies, i.e., ASTM, ANSI, and ASME.
When I asked again to be certain, the maintenance
manager’s reply was “That’s the way it’s done
industry wide”. When the tour was over, the
attorney asked “What do you think?” I explained
that everything I saw and heard was helpful, except
the comment about “That’s the way it’s done industry
wide”.
Now it should be pointed out that this practice
“That’s the way it’s done industry wide” is the type
of practice that leads to failure mode B. However,
the facts developed clearly and completely point to
co-defendant as the source of the problem. The SEM
work unequivocally pointed, without question, to the
co-dependant’s conduct and actions as having planted
the seed, which, in a very short time, led to the
subject failure.
Within a few days, I received a call from the
attorney, “Dr. Jerner, we would like to have a
‘backup’ metallurgist look at the evidence and
conduct his own investigation”.
Later, I prepared and submitted my expert report.
Shortly thereafter, I received a call indicating
“Dr. Jerner, we have decided not to name you as a
testifying expert. Your report doesn’t agree with
the facts that we have developed”.
|
|
|
 Dr.
R. Craig Jerner, Ph.D., PE specializes in accident
investigation and metallurgical failure analysis,
with over 30 years experience as a metallurgical
consultant and accident investigator. He has
testified as a metallurgical expert in over 250
depositions and more than 70 court appearances. If you or someone you know should need the services of Dr. Jerner and J.E.I. Metallurgical, please visit our web site at the buttons below, or e-mail Dr. Jerner --- r.c.jerner@metallurgist.com |
|
