OVERVIEW

I’ve blogged for seven years now, two or three times a month to tell you about a field of engineering that I enjoy and that contributes to dispute resolution and claim settlement – a nice way to practice.

I want parties to a dispute or claim to know something about the nature and methods of forensic engineering investigation and about managing costs when you retain an expert.

You think-on-paper when you blog and that’s good practice when you must synthesize and analyse engineering evidence, draw conclusions and form an opinion.  Blogs are essays on a topic, sometimes technical, and not unlike mini expert reports in story form.  .

I also blog because I like that creative feeling when you write – producing a piece of literature that didn’t exist before.  There’s 200 of my blogs/essays/mini expert reports out there now varying from a few 100 words to several 1,000.

The following nine (9) reasons and comments elaborate on why I blog.  There’s a summary and references at the end if you’re quite busy and haven’t got a lot of time.  Reference 10 is a good read about managing cost.

The REASONS

REASON 1

I want parties involved in dispute resolution or insurance claim settlement to know something about the nature and methods of forensic engineering investigation – what you get when you retain an expert.  Not how to do the work, just to have some idea of what we do to help you solve your problem.

Comment: For example, the surprising value of one of the newer investigative methods like a low flying drone fitted with a GoPro camera taking video at the scene of a failure or accident in the built environment.

Older methods like terrain analysis – identifying features on the ground from the air and how they relate to your problem, but doing this much more reliably from a few 100 feet high rather than several 1,000 like in the past.  And simple methods like simple, high school math.

An aerial photograph taken from a low flying drone was key to assessing the pattern of drainage at a contaminated site and where the fuel oil went.  I was surprised at what I saw.  Aerial video of another site is helping me assess if the site is contaminated decades after a spill.  And still another, the geometric design and safety of a site.

Simple high school math was key to learning the disputed height of a feature in the landscape.

Smart phone video of the reenactment of a power tool accident showed how the accident likely happened.

I want to describe how we carry out reliable investigations, observe, test, study, synthesize, analyse, think-on-paper, draw conclusions and formulate objective opinions.  Then present reliable evidence to the parties involved in a dispute or claim, and to the court or tribunal, in simple, non-technical English.

Forensic civil engineering is not high tech but it does require reliable work and good expert report writing.

Why is Reason #1 a particularly good reason?  It’s because parties to a dispute have obligations with respect to the expert’s report or affidavit. (Ref. 1)

For example, parties in a litigious matter must learn about the technical subject to which the evidence relates in order to identify the relevant technical issues.  He or she has an important duty in the presentation of technical evidence to ensure it’s properly understood by the court or tribunal. (Ref. 1)

As well, parties to dispute resolution and claim settlement have an obligation to monitor  cost in view of the often small to medium size-sized disagreements in the Atlantic provinces – and their sometimes less than affluent nature.  This is because the extent and cost of an all-stages forensic investigation is often similar regardless of whether the engineering failure or personal injury is small, medium-sized, catastrophic or terrible.

It’s difficult for parties to a dispute or loss to carry out their obligations, and also monitor costs, without some understanding of how experts work.

REASON 2

I also want to help readers understand why a forensic engineering investigation can be expensive.

Comment: The expense has everything to do with carrying out a reliable investigation and rendering a well reasoned opinion, as expected of the expert.  At the very least, following routine investigative procedures in an effort to ensure that no stone is left un-turned. (Ref. 3)

We don’t know when we start what we’re going to find that we must investigate – the surprise, follow-the-evidence situations.  Every failure and accident is different. (Refs 4, 5 and 6)  Not enough time and money is no excuse if we miss something.

Parties to a dispute or loss can assist, with some understanding of forensic work, by identifying and selecting the relevant technical issues early with the assistance of the expert.  This can be a big cost cutter.

REASON 3

To help parties to a dispute understand the importance of retaining an expert early in all matters, the different ways an expert can be retained and the importance of monitoring costs – starting when the merits of a potential issue are being assessed. (Refs 7, 8)

Comment: At present, experts are too often retained months or years after a case is taken and after the cost of the forensic investigation has been estimated by other than the expert.  This is contrary to the advice of some of the most senior members of the legal profession. (Ref. 9)

For example, I was retained by counsel 11 years after a personal injury.  I visually examined the site and reported on what could have been done to prevent the accident.  The case settled four (4) months later.  To give counsel credit, he instructed me on the relevant technical issues which reduced the cost in this case.  This type of instruction doesn’t happen very often.

REASON 4

To help the justice system understand what they should be getting for the money spent on forensic investigation: That is, reliable investigations, well thought out expert opinions, and well written reports.

Comment: Rules governing experts have placed greater emphasis on the investigation and the expert’s report, to encourage the settlement of cases without going to discovery and trial.

There are excellent guidelines on forensic investigation and also on writing an expert’s report.  And excellent books, in general, on writing well.  I’m not sure these are being consulted to the extent they should.  I recently saw poorly written reports by a forensic firm claiming to have 18 different experts on staff.

REASON 5

I want to understand the forensic engineering field better myself, to learn by writing the blogs and thinking-on-paper – particularly, on how addressing the technical issues supports the resolution of disputes.

Comment: Like all of us, I’m learning all the time.  Most recently about the value of low cost, initial hypotheses on the cause of problems based on very limited data.  This task could save counsel money – as long as it’s remembered they are initial hypotheses.

For example, I hypothesized with considerable confidence on the cause of a catastrophic bridge failure during construction (Edmonton) – based on study of photographs in a newspaper.  In another, the cause of the sloping, sagging floors in a multi-story building (Halifax) – based on a visual examination of the floors and knowing how these types of buildings are constructed.

Cases are also being settled today based on simple verbal reports after the technical issues are addressed.  In some cases not even a verbal report because counsel is on site and sees the results of the expert’s investigation unfold before his eyes – this happened during a slip and fall accident that I investigated.  I don’t think counsel could believe what he was seeing.

REASON 6

I want to increase my understanding of the dispute resolution and claim settlement processes.

Comment: Experts have a duty to acquire some understanding of these processes.  For example, the justice system expects this in civil litigation.

I researched and posted 10 blogs on the role of a professional engineer in the civil litigation process for the benefit of counsel and their clients. (Ref. 8) I learned a lot during this research.  I was assisted by senior counsel in preparing drafts of two of these blogs.

It’s also been an eye-opener to learn of the dichotomy between the party’s right to justice and the expense of getting it.  Associated is the conflicting interests of the different parties to the process.

For example, the court, while encouraging counsel to expedite cases and control costs, wants good evidence and a reliable opinion – which takes time and money.  The expert needs to do thorough investigative work to get this evidence.  He expects to get paid according to his schedule of fees, his level of expertise and the responsibility he bears.  If the party has retained the expert on a fee basis, he doesn’t want to spend any more than necessary.  If counsel has taken the case on a contingency basis and retained the expert, he wants to protect the worth of the file to his firm.  Quite a mix of interests.

REASON 7

Because of a sense of obligation to my readers who have seen the blog for seven years now and perhaps have come to expect it to fill a void that was there.

Comment: Feed back suggests you do get something from my descriptions of the nature and methods of forensic engineering, and my comments on related matters.

A senior lawyer in Atlantic Canada said, “I love that stuff..!!”.  Another senior legal chap on the east coast commented, “…like reading them.”  And an insurance claim consultant said, “I read every one”.  It’s hard to beat testimonials like that.

I mentioned above that two senior counsel helped me with two of the blogs on the role of professional engineers in the civil litigation process – critiqued the blogs before their posting.  One of these noted that experts are invaluable to civil litigation.

A chap who blogs on business ethics, Dr. Chris MacDonald, Toronto, and has an international reputation in his field – Chris is on a list of 100 influential business people that includes Barack Obama – saw fit to advise his twitter followers of my blog.

A monthly periodical on engineering construction – with an international distribution of 10,000, sought permission to publish one of my blogs.  The issue had a forensic engineering theme.  They came back a couple of weeks later requesting permission to publish two additional blogs in the same issue.

In seven years, only about 10 readers asked to be removed from my distribution list.  This was because they were retired or the subject did not relate to their field of practice.

Overall, quite a good reception suggesting there was a void, and I’m filling it and making a contribution to the dispute resolution and insurance claim settlement processes.

REASON 8

“It’s my soap box”, one colleague said of why I blog.

Comment: There’s some truth in that particularly when I see inadequate forensic investigations, poorly written expert reports and questionable practices.  I vent but you don’t know it because it’s well disguised.  It feels good afterwards, and there’s almost always a lesson in my remarks.

REASON 9

For that satisfied feeling that comes from creating something – a piece of literature that did not exist before

Comment: A few months after I started blogging in June, 2012, I noticed a feeling of satisfaction after posting an item, a mild elation.  It was subtle but there.  On reflection, I realized I felt good because I had created something – a piece of literature that didn’t exist until I put pen to paper.  So, I blog for that satisfied, creative feeling too.  You all know how elusive that feeling is in our busy work/social, balanced-challenged lives.

On further reflection, I realized the feeling was also about finally publishing information on a topic or technical issue useful to my readers – finally letting it go.  I like my blogs to be as clear and well written as possible – in a sense, like well written, mini expert reports.

SUMMARY

In summary, the reasons and comments on why I blog might look like this:

1. To give you an idea of forensic engineering methods that help resolve disputes and settle claims
2. Help you learn why forensic engineering is sometimes expensive
3. Explain the importance of retaining an expert early and ways this can be done cost effectively
4. To understand better myself how addressing technical issues resolves disputes and claims
5. Increase my understanding of the forensic engineering field and how it  contributes to the resolution of disputes and the settlement of claims
6. An obligation to my readers who enjoy the short essays on topics of mutual interest
7. My soap box for venting on practices in our respective fields that are not good
8. I like to write, to create something that didn’t exist until I put pen-to-paper
9. For that satisfied feeling on creating a piece of literature that didn’t exist before

REFERENCES

1. The Advocates` Society, Toronto, Ontario, Principles governing communicating with testifying experts June, 2014
2. Peer review costs can be controlled.  Posted January 22, 2016
3. Steps in the forensic engineering investigative process with an appendix on cost.  Posted July 15, 2013
4. What do forensic engineers investigate in Atlantic Canada.  Posted October 9, 2014
5. Forensic engineering practice in Eastern Canada.  Posted May 7, 2015
6. How many ways can a building fail and possibly result in civil litigation or an insurance claim?  Posted July 10, 2014
7. The role of a professional engineer in counsel’s decision to take a case.  Posted June 26, 2012
8. A bundle of blogs: A civil litigation resource list on how to use forensic engineering experts.  Posted November 20, 2013
9. Stockwood, Q.C., David, Civil Litigation: A Practical Handbook, 5th ed., 2004, Thomson Carlswell
10. Principles governing the cost control of dispute resolution and claim settlement involving experts.  Posted July 30, 2019

(Posted by Eric E. Jorden, M.Sc., P.Eng. Consulting Professional Engineer, Forensic Engineer, Geotechnology Ltd., Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada August 15, 2019 ejorden@eastlink.ca)   

I can’t help thinking that low level, aerial photography from drones then simple terrain analysis of what is captured in the video will find the alleged killers in northern Manitoba.  Even if they’re dead, as I can hardly imagine them otherwise in terrain like that.

I’ve worked in that kind of terrain here and overseas and it’s unforgiving.  Load heat-sensing gear on the drones and it’s a no-brainer finding them if the photography is  flown properly.

Terrain analysis involves identifying features on the ground and considering how they relate to your interests.

Aerial photography using drones and terrain analysis is well developed in civil engineering.  I know the police forces have picked up on the technology and learned well and are using it to good advantage in Manitoba.

I’ve used drone video on several forensic investigations including two kilometre-long sites, one covered by forest.  You can pick out a tennis ball with a drone flying at tree top level in that terrain – a few 10s of feet up.  A white face or hand would show quite nicely against the green forest floor.  I can imagine a pattern of foot prints across muskeg would show nicely too.

You can fly a drone across a couple of kilometres of terrain in minutes, study the video, analyse the terrain, stop and start the video every few seconds, take frame grabs, take out a magnifying glass and look closer still, etc., etc.

I flew the forested area in a recent case with people on the ground and got reams of data and evidence – not unlike what is possible in Manitoba and likely what is being done right now.

In a hunt like this, you track back and forth on a grid over the area of interest taking aerial photography as you go.  You can cover hundreds of kilometres of terrain with drone-mounted video cameras in the few days the searchers have been there.

I can’t help but think, if the alleged killers are still there, dead or alive, they would be found.  I don’t think they are else they would have been found by now with the aerial surveillance.  It may be time to move on to another hot-tip search area..

OVERVIEW

The total cost of dispute resolution or claim settlement includes the cost of an expert’s services.  Properly incorporating these costs into a party’s total costs is essential to good management.  This requires knowing something about the services you’re buying – the nature and methods of forensic investigation and how these costs develop.

Principles are needed to guide a party managing these costs.  I concluded this after noticing that experts were sometimes retained months after a dispute arose or a claim made, occasionally years after. 

I also noticed that an investigation was sometimes stopped when the cost of the expert’s services exceeded the budget set by the party involved – a budget with a technical component set by a non-technical person.  I couldn’t help but wonder if the dispute resolution or claim settlement, and the injured parties interests, were sometimes compromised as a result.

I identified the following seven (7) principles to help the parties to a dispute or claim manage their costs.  There is a comment on each.  I say identified  because the principles have always existed but sometimes overlooked.

PRINCIPLES 1, 2 and 3 are fundamental to cost management.  You can’t go wrong if you follow these three.

(There are also good reads in the References as cited in the Comments)

I think of a party as one or more of the following:

1. Counsel and advocates
2. Insurers
3. Insurance claim managers, consultants and adjusters
4. Property owners
5. Architects, engineers, builders and contractors
6. Victims of accidents and failures in the built environment
7. Injured parties, in general, for whatever reason

***

For a long time in the Atlantic provinces, experts have played an important role in civil litigation, dispute resolution and insurance claim settlement.  You don’t hear about the majority of these issues because they involve small or medium-sized loses, failures and accidents.  They’re not catastrophic, breaking news.  Many are also less affluent. (Ref. 1)

But, affluent or not, they all require an expert to be thorough, reliable and objective even when investigating one, small technical issue.

It’s difficult to be thorough when you’re retained late in the process and impossible when your work is stopped mid-investigation.

A timely and reliable estimate of an expert’s costs, based on the forensic work he must do, is essential to good management – with informed input from the expert.  This is the case in civil litigation, for example, regardless of whether the file is taken by counsel on a fee or a contingency basis.

How serious is the omission?  Less than good management results when the expert’s invoices start to come in threatening the budget that the expert had no part in setting, and the expert’s services are suddenly stopped.

For example, I’m certain stopped in one claim involving the disputed height of a feature in the landscape, to the detriment of any damages entitled the injured party.  A height argued back and forth and up and down by three opposing parties in three discovery documents, with no good evidence.  Yet a height quickly and easily got by an expert with simple, high school math.

And in another case involving a slip and fall accident that resulted in the injured party changing firms.  Fortunately, in another slip and fall accident counsel was on site to see and photograph the expert’s investigation and testing – and saved the day for the injured party when the forensic work was stopped by management because of cost.

And in still another when a case involving a head injury settled four months after an expert was retained – 11 years after the case was taken.

Somewhat related, a confidential survey of remediation contractors for the National Research Council found that contaminated site remediation was costing more than it should, in many cases much more, for want of an expert – $35,000 billed instead of $5,000 incurred on one small cleanup according to a contractor. (Ref. 2)

It doesn’t have to be like this.  There’s enough guidance out there now to help a consultant or adjuster manage the cost of a claim, or counsel manage the cost of civil litigation. (Ref. 3)  Guidance that allows the expert to do his work thoroughly, reliably and objectively and serve the dispute resolution process properly.

This can be done while ensuring, as required by common law, that experts: (Ref. 4):

1. Be independent from the parties who retain them;
2. Provide objective, unbiased opinion evidence in relation only to matters within their expertise; and
3. Avoid assuming the role of advocates for the parties that retain them.

These requirements of experts are the same in all issues involving dispute resolution and claim settlement.  The great majority of experts know that they serve the process not the party, as found in a pilot study of 152 experts that have testified in Canada. (Ref. 5)

The requirements of common law also mean that an expert must engage on a fee basis rather than a contingency basis, and accounts kept up to date.

I realized that while there’s guidance in the literature, it needs to see the light of day.

I knew about the Principles Governing Communications With Testifying Experts developed by The Advocates Society, Ontario. (Ref. 1)

I identified the following Principles Governing the Cost Control of Dispute Resolution and Claim Settlement Involving Experts (the “Principles”) patterned on this document.  The Principles are intended to provide guidance in a similar way.

How did I identify the Principles?  For certain I was guided by the Principles Governing Communications with Testifying Experts.

But I also had insight from my practice in forensic civil engineering in the Atlantic provinces since the late 1980s.

As well, my blogging since 2012 on the nature and methods of forensic engineering was immensely helpful – including about 18 blogs on the cost of civil litigation involving experts. (Ref. 6)  You learn when you write.

Prior to my forensic work, I practiced civil engineering, specializing in geotechnical and foundation work, and often enough environmental site assessment and remediation.  I worked in eastern, western and northern Canada, off-shore Nova Scotia, and in the Caribbean, the U.K. and Australia.  I saw a few failures and accidents during that time.

Prior to engineering, I studied land surveying in Nova Scotia and practiced on Prince Edward  Island.

In addition, drafts of the Principles were read by colleagues in engineering and a civil litigation lawyer.  All offered good comments.  Those by the lawyer and a town planner were particularly helpful.  I tweak the Principles from time to time based on comments by readers.

The Principles are not intended to address the cost of all disputes and claims but to provide some guidance on managing those involving experts.  The Principles focus on:

1. Early retention of an expert
2. Frequent conferring with the expert
3. The estimated scope of an expert’s services and costs
4. The experts’s greater qualification for assessing technical costs
5. Early incorporation of the expert’s costs into the dispute resolution process 
6. Frequent updating of cost as evidence comes in
7. The shock of the financial realities in dispute resolution (Refs 4 and 10)

As with the Principles Governing Communications with Testifying Experts, the hope is that by adhering to the following Principles, parties to a dispute or claim will fulfill their duties to their clients and customers at a well managed cost without compromising the work of experts.

The PRINCIPLES

PRINCIPLE 1

A party should consult early with an expert about the cost of investigating a dispute, an insurance claim, a failure in the built environment or an accident.  In the case of civil litigation, preferably before the case is taken during the merit-assessment stage.

Comment

The emphasis in Principle 1 is on “consult early”.  This can’t be emphasized too greatly.  Too many cases are taken and disputes go forward only to find months or years after the fact – when an expert is finally consulted – that more investigation is needed than there is budget.

Managing the cost of an issue starts with an initial cost estimate, and the technical component of the cost can only be estimated by an expert.  Expert consultation at an early stage costs money but very little compared to the cost of a technically weak dispute or insurance claim found out too late.

Properly managing cost starts by identifying the different expenses contributing to the cost.  When one of the expenses is a personal service like an expert, engaging with the expert early is good cost management.

PRINCIPLE 2

A party should recognize that the expert is the person best qualified to estimate the cost of his or her services based on their assessment of the scope of an investigation of the technical issues.

Comment

The cost of an expert’s services can only be estimated by the expert, and only after he or she has estimated the scope of their work by carrying out tasks such as the following:

1. Taking a briefing by the party on the failure or accident
2. Reviewing available documentation
3. Visually examining the site, either virtually or in person
4. Identifying the technical issues in consultation with the party

Emphasis must be placed on estimated because not even the expert knows where his investigation will lead if he follows-the-evidence.

It helps if a party confers with the expert and gains some understanding of the investigative process and how costs develop.  This in a manner similar to how an expert is expected to have an understanding of the judicial process in a civil litigation matter.

PRINCIPLE 3 

A party should confer often with the expert during the investigation and get frequent cost-to-date and estimated cost-to-complete the expert’s work at key stages during the forensic investigation.  Then add these to the cost-to-date and cost-to-complete the party’s cost to get up-to-date total costs of the dispute resolution.  

Comment

This is a key and ongoing task in the cost control of civil litigation, and in dispute and claim resolution, in general.

Conform to this principle and you’ve got hard data for controlling your costs.  This is a fundamental principle in the well developed field of project management. (Ref. 3)

The scope of an expert’s investigation may change and be greater or less than initially assessed.  The importance of some conventional tasks may fade while unexpected follow-up tasks may need to be considered.

Care must be taken with undue focus on a budget.  There’s no question one needs to be set but it must not be perceived as a fixed price for which an expert agrees to do all that is necessary.

In civil litigation, for example, counsel and expert must each have some understanding of the other’s role to make it work.  Key stages in both the legal process and the forensic process are well known.

Also well known in project management is that the cost-to-complete a project is (1) very approximate at the beginning, (2) gets better as a project goes to completion and is (3) quite accurate towards the end.  This applies to all dispute and claim resolution involving experts.

It doesn’t help, of course, that we occasionally have situations where estimating the cost to investigate a catastrophic failure or a terrible accident is sometimes easy, and estimating the cost to investigate a simple failure is sometimes difficult. (Ref. 7)

It helps to learn why it’s difficult for an expert to identify and estimate the cost of all the tasks in a forensic investigation.  It varies from easy, to difficult, to very difficult, to impossible. (Ref. 8)

It’s important for a party to have a plan for managing the cost of investigating the technical issues.  For “taking the measure” of the dispute resolution or claim settlement and the expert’s costs at key stages in the process.  This in the spirit of “If you can measure it you can manage it” that’s cast-in-stone in engineering. (Ref. 9)  Such a plan is reflected in Principle 3. 

PRINCIPLE 4 

A party to a dispute involving experts must recognize that he is managing a potentially expensive process.

Comment

Remember in civil litigation that “…most clients are unfamiliar with the technical and procedural aspects of litigation.  They are also unfamiliar, and shocked, by the financial realities”. (Ref. 4)

“It’s necessary to fully explain the “facts of life” at an early stage using a delicate touch so that the client does not become completely discouraged from enforcing his rights.” (Ref. 4)

I believe David Stockwell’s comment speaks in part to the fact that the cost of civil litigation, and all dispute and claim resolution, including that involving experts, can be controlled but only to a limited extent – part of the financial realities.

“A lawyer just doesn’t walk into court – a lot of preparation is necessary beforehand”. (Ref. 10)  Similarly, an expert just doesn’t write a report and render an opinion on the cause of a failure or accident in the built environment – a lot of investigation is sometimes necessary beforehand.  Some cases don’t go forward properly until the expert’s work is done, and some don’t go forward at all.

PRINCIPLE 5 

Counsel can manage costs better by retaining an expert according to the needs of the case, basically as a consulting expert or a testifying expert.

Comment

Civil Procedure Rules governing experts are resulting in more out-of-court resolution of disputes.  As a result, experts will be increasingly retained as consulting experts.  There are different ways this can be done with different costs. (Ref. 11)

There’s a big difference in expert costs between the least expensive where you retain an expert to (1) do a virtual visual site assessment (no site visit and walk-over survey) (Refs 12 and 13) or to (2) peer review the work of another and report verbally – more expensive but good insurance. 

To the most expensive where you retain an expert to (1) carry out a detailed forensic investigation, (2) collect data (3) analyse data, (4) draw conclusions, (5) formulate an opinion and (6) write and submit a report compliant with the Rules.

I must say it again, getting an expert to do a virtual visual site assessment at the beginning of a forensic investigation is the least expensive way of retaining an expert.  And often enough, such an assessment shows where the forensic investigation is heading giving good reason to stop and agree a resolution.

There are differences between the cost of a verbal report and a written report at any stage of an investigative.  There are also differences between a factual report when the expert gives the data only, and an interpretative report when the expert analyses the data and gives the analysis as well.

The “hot tub” method of resolving differences between expert’s findings and opinions is another cost effective way of working with consulting experts. (Ref. 14)  Experts for the different parties in a dispute or claim (1) meet with their different reports, (2) discuss these, (3) resolve their differences and (4) agree a single report on the matter.

PRINCIPLE 6 

A party should confer with the expert to understand the technical issues and help identify the key one(s) that must be investigated.

Comment

Start this process – it could be ongoing as investigative data comes in and the technical issues change – as soon as the expert has been briefed on the dispute and had a chance to assess an initial scope of investigation.  There will be good control of an expert’s costs if only one or two technical issues must be investigated compared to several.

In civil litigation, for example, cost is well managed when an expert has some understanding of the judicial process and counsel is similarly informed about the forensic investigative process – and they talk often about the relevant technical issues.  This understanding serves all the Principles well.

PRINCIPLE 7

Beware the tyranny of the bottom line – the effect of undue focus on the worth of the file to the firm on the thoroughness, reliability and objectivity of an expert’s work and also on any damages due the injured party. (Ref. 15)

Comment

A firm must make money else there won’t be someone there to represent the interests of the injured party.  But care must be taken that a balance is struck that is consistent with good dispute and claim-resolution processes and forensic practice, and the appropriate interests of the injured party.

References

1. The Advocates Society, Principles Governing Communications With Testifying Experts, Ontario June 2014
2. Jorden, Eric E., How to Reduce Oil Spill Damage Claims; Early Study Results, Atlantic Claims Journal, The Official Journal of the Insurance Claims Association of Nova Scotia, November 12, Winter 2002
3. Kerzner, PhD, Harold, Project Management; a Systems Approach to Planning, Scheduling and Controlling, 8th ed, 2003, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey
4. Stockwood, Q.C., David, Civil Litigation, A Practical Handbook, 5th ed, 2004, Thompson Carswell
5. Corbin, Ruth M., Chair, Corbin Partners Inc. and Adjunct Professor, Osgoode Hall School, Toronto, Breaking the Expert Evidence Logjam: Experts Weigh In, presented at Expert Witness Forum East, Toronto, February, 2018
6. A Bundle of Blogs: How to Manage the Cost of Civil Litigation Involving Experts.  Posted August 31, 2017
7. (Fairly easy) estimating the investigative cost of a catastrophic engineering failure. Posted August 13, 2013
8. Difficulty estimating the cost of forensic engineering investigation.  Posted July 23, 2013
9. “If you measure it you can manage it” – and do thorough forensic engineering, and cost effective civil litigation.  Posted June 18, 2015
10. “A rose by any other name …”, Primers for lawyers.  Posted December 19, 2016 (Note comment by Ron Rizzo, Pink Larkin, Lawyers, Halifax)
11. How to retain an expert in a cost effective way.  Posted November  30, 2018
12. What can you get from virtual visual site assessment about the cause of leaning retaining wall?  Posted November 13, 2020
13. A Bundle of Blogs: On using visual site assessment in forensic investigation.  Posted January 25, 2021
14. “Hot tubing” experts reduce the cost of civil litigation and ensure objectivity.  Posted March 31, 2018
15. Professional ethics and the tyranny of the bottom line.  Posted October 11, 2011

(Posted by Eric E. Jorden, M.Sc., P.Eng. Consulting Professional Engineer, Forensic Engineer, Geotechnology Ltd., Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada July 30, 2019 ejorden@eastlink.ca)      

(Updated by Eric E. Jorden, M.Sc., P.Eng., September 24, 2020, March 18, 2021 and December 30, 2021)

I thought there was a case for a multi standard of care, one that varied according to the stage of a forensic investigation.  But that’s not so.  However, there is a risk some people don’t understand this, or aren’t interested.

The standard of care in a nutshell is “…the degree of care a reasonable person should exercise”. (Refs 1, 2)

A reasonable engineer would do only what is appropriate to the stage of a forensic investigation which includes exercising common sense.  Others might do something different depending on their vested interests.

For example, a reasonable person might do a simple, approximate test of a material property in the early stage of an investigation, using readily available, inexpensive equipment .  Then later, if needed, after some results are in, a more accurate test with more expensive equipment.  The standard remains the same: – What a reasonable engineer would do at each stage.  What changes in this example is the test accuracy required and the test equipment used.

In general, this process is the scientific method.  It also reflects differential diagnosing in medicine.

It goes without saying that what is needed in an application of the standard of care is for the reasonable person to be suitably qualified and unbiased.

***

These thoughts were prompted by slip and fall accidents that I’ve investigated over the years, and the inevitable rebuttal of my reports on the accidents.

A fairly typical investigation of a slip and fall accident proceeds as follows:

I visit the scene three times.  The first visit to reconnoiter and visually examine the scene, walk around and “kick the tires” so to speak.  The second visit to have the victim re-enact the accident.  Also to simply slide the shoe the accident victim was wearing at the time across the floor and get some idea of how slippery it was.  The third visit to carry out manual drag sled tests to measure the skid resistance of the floor.  Drag sled testing is simple and inexpensive, exactly what a reasonable engineer would do at the start.

(You drag – pull – a known weight across the floor, measure the pull, divide the one by the other and get the skid resistance – the coefficient of friction like in high school physics)

In one case the victim was bare foot so I got a piece of pig’s belly, which is very similar to human skin, and pulled that across the floor – again, exactly what a reasonable engineer would do.  Pretty hard to drag a person’s bare foot across a floor.

When the tested skid resistance during a third visit is close to the lowest value possible for a material and well below that required for the floor and it’s foot traffic, I stop testing.  The skid resistant might be higher using a more precise and expensive test than drag sled testing but not at all high enough to classify the floor as safe.

How do I know?  The more expensive, precise test machine basically removes human error and bias from the testing.  The cheaper, less accurate drag sled testing removes a lot when we carry out a lot of tests.

The police do 10 tests with a drag sled when testing the skid resistance of a road at the scene of an accident.  I do 10 tests at each drag sled test location on a floor.  I also test several locations on a floor and test in different directions at each location, 10 times at each location and in each direction.

The rebuttal of my reports often reflects some knowledge of skid testing but the phraseology sometimes reflects bias in favour of the client too.  It’s also possible the writers have knowledge of the concept of the standard of care.  Unfortunately, the biased phraseology might call that knowledge into question.

***

There are several stages in all forensic investigation, from the simple to the complex.  Assessing cause also goes from the simple to the complex.  From a simple, initial walk over and visual examination of the exposed surfaces of a site to detailed intrusive examinations, measuring, testing – including full scale tests – and re-enactments of accidents.  For example, from estimating distance by pacing it off, to measuring distance with a tape, to using electronic measuring devices.

Forensic investigations stop at different stages too.  For example, after a simple walk over survey.  They can also stop after an investigator has done only simple testing.  Also after the extra cost of more accurate testing is not justified by the slight refinement in the test results.

Through it all the standard of care remains the same, “…the degree of care a reasonable forensic engineer should exercise”.  It doesn’t vary according to the stage of an investigation, the methods used or the cost.  No, not at all.  There’s only one standard, not many,

References

1. Garner, Bryan A., Ed., Black’s Law Dictionary 4th edition 1996
2. How the standard of care is determined when a failure or an accident occurs in the built environment Posted June 28, 2014.  Updated October 2017

Bibliography

1. Nicastro, P.E. David E., ed., Failure Mechanisms in Building Construction, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 1997
2. Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th pocket edition 2011
3. Kardon, J. B. 2000, 2010 Chapter 7, Standard of Care in Forensic Structural Engineering Handbook, R. T. Ratay, Editor-in-Chief, McGraw-Hill, New York.
4. Thompson, D. E. and Ashcraft, H. W. 2000, 2010 Chapter 9 Page 9.17 in Forensic Structural Engineering Handbook R. T.  Ratay, Editor-in-Chief, McGraw-Hill, New York.
5. Association of Soil and Foundation Engineers (ASFE) 1985 Expert: A Guide to Forensic Engineering and Service as an Expert Witness
6. Mangraviti, Jr., James J., Babitsky, Steven, and Donovan, Nadine Nasser, How to Write an Expert Witness Report, SEAK, Inc., Falmouth, MA 2014
7. Kardon, Joshua B., Editor, 2012 Chapter 3, The Standard of Care in American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia
8. Tronto, J. C. (1993), Moral Boundaries: A Political Argument for an Ethic of Care, Routeledge, New York.
9. Kardon, J. B. (2005), The Concept of “Care” in Engineering.  American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 256-260.

Posted by Eric E. Jorden, M.Sc., P.Eng. Consulting Professional Engineer, Forensic Engineer, Geotechnology Ltd., Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, June, 27, 2019 ejorden@eastlink.ca                          

I was struck by a death investigator’s remark because it seemed to echo our care in forensic work to avoid any perception of bias.  I wondered, does a medical examiner need to be on guard investigating death?  Like, is there sometimes pressure to lean one way or the other in their findings?

Now, a few days later, I’m thinking the death investigator was referring to the pressure to work fast.

I was touring the medical examiner services facility in Halifax and also took in a talk by Dr. Eveline Gallant, one of the examiners.  This is where medical examiners do autopsies to determine the cause and manner of death after examining a body at the scene.

Examiners can do four autopsies at a time at this facility, one of the best in the country, I understand.  The facility also has a restful place for the examiners considering the work they do and the way they get their hands dirty and blood on their boots.  They also have a comfortable room for the family of the dead.

The fact there must be a capability to do four autopsies at the same time makes me think there’s a time-pressure on an examiner.

My tour was in connection with work I do for the Halifax Regional Police Victim Services unit.  I was one of a number on the tour that included RCMP officers as well.

Dr. Gallant’s power point was excellent.  Good graphics and good fill-in comment by Eveline.  At one point I was struck by something she said to the effect, “We answer to no one when investigating death”, prompting this short blog. The thorough pursuit of the cause and manner of death is what it’s all about.  I’m thinking now she and her colleagues push back against the pressure of time.

(I did a tiny bit of push-back myself recently in a case I’ve got providing expert services in a dispute involving a structure and a looming court date, and my well informed client understood when I explained)   .

I thought, how Dr. Gallant’s understanding of the way it must be in her work was like the charge to an expert to serve the court thoroughly and objectively.

Another comment by Dr. Gallant resonated with me, “100% certainty is not necessary in death determination.”  That is also true in forensic work.  We often deal with messy nature and the answers are less than 100% certain.  .

Also, I noted how the many specialists a medical examiner like Eveline must rely on at times echos the many a forensic engineer must call on.  The two of us in our respective fields know quite a lot, including not forgetting we are principal investigators who call on other specialists when required – we don’t know everything.

I think death investigators and forensic engineers also know – while mindful of the time constraints on our associates and clients – that investigations can’t be hurried.

***

Death investigation is a lot like forensic investigation as I learned during Dr. Gallant’s remarks and her guided tour, right down to being careful of perceived bias.  Actually, right down to the fact we’re both investigating a problem with a structure in the built environment – the one, a body structure and the other, for example, a building structure.

Bibliography

1. Gallant, Eveline, MD, Lecture and Tour: Death Investigation at the Medical Examiner’s Facility, Halifax 2019
2. Siegel, Jay A., Forensic Science, the Basics, 2nd ed., Chap. 10, Forensic Pathology, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida 2010
3. Cooper, Chris, Eye Witness Forensic Science, DK Publishing, New York 2008

There’s more to slip, trip and fall accidents than the skid resistance of flooring and the tread of the footwear.  The cause of an accident also varies with the location of the accident and these can be categorized. (Refs 1, 2)  When an expert is asked about cause at the case- or insurance-claim assessment stage, he wants to know about accident location.  The category tells him a lot.

He thinks differently according to the category.  This is the same as him thinking differently according to the type of structure, component or material that fails in the built environment, as posted in earlier blogs. (Ref. 3)

You mention location in your briefing on the accident and the expert goes through the same process in forming an initial hypothesis on cause – an initial oral report – as for a structure that fails.  He considers::

• Your briefing – The location, category, technical issues and facts in your description of the accident
• His experience – What he’s learned investigating slip, trip and fall accidents
• Published material – The helpful information out there – a lot – on the different categories of accident location

There are many categories. (Refs 1, 2):

1. Level walkway surface
2. Level walkway surface and water
3. Floor mats – For example, mats can move as I found in one case
4. Changes in level
5. Lawns – Example, wet grassy slopes
6. Ice and snow – Including black ice on a sloping asphalt driveway that I slipped and fell hard on last winter.  Also skating ice that I fell on a couple years ago but I was wearing my ski helmet and only hurt my pride
7. Ladders – Reaching too far when on the upper rungs of a ladder and falling which happened to me a few years ago
8. Porches and balconies
9. Roads and sidewalks
10. Parking areas
11. Trucks – Getting in and out of trucks and also hurting yourself when securing load
12. Work place and construction sites
13. Residences (single and multi-family)
14. Play grounds and recreational facilities
15. Swimming pool decks and locker and shower rooms – Note how many have “Caution: slippery-when-wet signs”, and skid-resisting mats on dry sauna floors
16. Saunas – Floors can get wet from water bottles and dripping bathing suits
17. Ramps – I was very conscious recently of a very slight ramping-up to the entrance of a car show room.  It was subtle but there – and it was wet. 
18. Bathrooms – Examples: walk in showers and tubs
19. Kitchens
20. Stairs
21. Handrails and guardrails – Examples: rail graspability also rails that are too far apart on wide stairs
22. Elevators – For example, when they don’t stop exactly at floor level
23. Escalators

You might be interested in knowing that falls in the work place are the number one preventable loss type.  And in public places, falls are far and away the leading cause of injury. (Ref. 1)  There are lots of work places and lots of public places as can be seen in the above list.

I haven’t seen them but I’m certain percentages have been worked out for the occurrence of accidents at each of the above locations.  Also, on looking closer at each location, I’m certain percentages have been worked out for the following different elements in a slip, trip or fall accident at each location: (Ref. 4):

1. Surface covering
2. Lubricant
3. Shoe (slider)
4. Ambient parameters
5. Activity

And looking closer still at each location, I’m certain percentages exist of accidents that can be traced back to each of the following: (Ref. 1):

1. Design of the physical location
2. Managing the location
3. Maintaining it
4. Monitoring the location

Categorizing the location of slip, trip and fall accidents like this can help determine the cause of an accident.  This is similar to categorizing the structures in the built environment as a means of determining the cause of failure of one of the structures or one of the components.  This categorizing is why an expert can give you some understanding of cause at the case- or claim-assessment stage.

We categorize people to help a society function – and this works when done thoughtfully.  Why not categorize accident locations to help determine cause?

References

1. Di Pilla, Steven, Slip, Trip and Fall Prevention; A Practical Handbook, 2nd ed., CRC Press, Boca Raton 2010
2. Sotter, George, Stop Slip and Fall Accidents!: A Practical Guide, 2nd ed., Sotter Engineering Corporation, Mission Viejo, CA 2014
3. Jorden, Eric E., Update: Where does an expert’s initial hypothesis come from?  Posted March 18, 2019
4. Sebald, Jenn, System oriented concept for testing and assessment of the slip resistance of safety, protective and occupational footwear, Berlin 2009

(Posted by Eric E. Jorden, M.Sc., P.Eng. Consulting Professional Engineer, Forensic Engineer, Geotechnology Ltd., Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. April 30, 2019 ejorden@eastlink.ca)   

Blog Update

I was remiss last week in not commenting on how the situation in sinkhole country relates to the interests of many of you in civil litigation and insurance.  I remember a vague feeling at the time that something was missing from my blog – I neglected to refer to the standard of care. (Ref. 1)

Last week’s blog commented on what an experienced engineer would do in an area susceptible to the formation of sinkholes – see below.

You’re certain to want to know for a failure in the built environment or an insurance claim that the standard of care was observed at a construction site.  We check this during a forensic investigation.

The standard of care for an undeveloped building site in an area with known foundation problems – like the risk of sinkholes – requires, at the very least, carrying out a geotechnical investigation.  Something similar applies to a developed site.

The investigation can be fairly routine for a compact site like a single building, bridge, wind turbine, etc. and the results can be quite accurate.  The investigation can also be inexpensive considering the cost of these structures.

Reference

1. How the standard of care is determined when a failure or accident occurs in the built environment. Posted June 28, 2014 and updated October, 2017

***

Sinkhole news highlights a problem that can be fixed

(Originally posted last week, March 31, 2019)

That was quite a picture in the newspaper a few days ago of a sinkhole that appeared last August in Oxford, Nova Scotia. (Ref. 1)  And the pictures of the sinkholes in British Columbia a few weeks ago (Ref. 2) and before that – back to Nova Scotia – some time ago in Falmouth..

Striking pictures but sad too when homes are lost, and scary at the thought of potential injuries and death.

But it’s time to stop.  There’s no need for the formation of sinkholes to surprise anyone nor pose a risk..  Nor be a “…a money pit”. (Ref. 1)  There would be no news and no pictures if experienced engineers were involved before these areas were developed.  And every chance some of these areas would have been undeveloped.  Engineers would carry out a standard geotechnical investigation of the ground at a site proposed for construction.  Simple as that.

The news story mentioned a geophysical survey.  That’s an engineering technique that’s been around a long time.  The fact that this is sinkhole country – Karst terrain – has been known a long time too.

Karst is an irregular limestone area with sinkholes, underground streams and caverns. (Ref. 3)

Remote sensing geophysical surveys – sort of like MRIs in medicine – detect features in the ground of interest to land owners.  Features like voids or conditions conducive to the formation of voids.  Sinkholes start as voids in the ground.

Limestone bedrock, gypsum and salt dissolve in the water in the ground to form voids, caverns and underground streams.  The voids get larger with time and eventually the top, or roof of the void, appears at the ground surface – a sinkhole. The voids are said to migrate to the ground surface.

The most recent picture shows red soil around the perimeter of the sinkhole.  This is glacial till – soil deposited by glaciers 1,000s of years ago.  The soil is heavy and would cause the top of a void to break and appear at the ground surface sooner rather than later.

Investigating undeveloped Karst country for sinkholes

What would an engineer do if asked to investigate the foundation conditions at a proposed construction site?  For example, the site of a building, or any of the structures in an urban area, or a residential subdivision or a strip mall.  This would be an engineer experienced in geotechnical or geological work.

They’re not always asked – and it appears not always in Karst country – but what would he do if he were?

He would first check.the published geology maps and aerial photographs of the area available to all of us.  It’s called terrain analysis in engineering.  He would see in the maps that a large area of Nova Scotia – many square kilometres – is underlain by Karst terrain.  He would also see in the photographs evidence of large sinkholes like the one in the picture.  He would tell you that the area is susceptible to the formation of sinkholes.  He would also tell you that he can’t predict where the sinkholes will appear in a large area.

But tell him approximately where you want to construct a subdivision or strip mall and he’ll give you a pretty good idea of the risk of sinkhole development in a small area like that.  Not the location of all future sinkholes but the location of some, and the risk of others.  He would do this after carrying out a geophysical survey.  The survey could be expensive for an area proposed for a subdivision or strip mall.

I did a geophysical survey of an airport runway on South Andros Island in the Bahamas one time.  I was looking for voids that might form sinkholes.  A runway is not unlike a residential street or a strip mall.  You can be sure I ran a lot of closely spaced survey lines down the runway looking for voids.

Tell the engineer precisely where you want to build a house, a multistory building, a bridge, a road, etc., a tiny area, and he will tell you if and where sinkholes will form and undermine your structure.  He would do a geophysical survey.  This wouldn’t be that expensive for a single structure and a good investment considering construction costs.  You might consider relocating the structure after the survey..

If the risk of sinkholes forming is low and you still want to build there then he would drill boreholes at the location of your structure and any features of interest found during the geophysical survey.  Boreholes retrieve samples of bedrock like limestone or indicate when the borehole passed through a void.  It’s called ground proofing in engineering work that relies on non invasive, non destructive geophysical surveying and terrain analysis.

Summarizing, this is what the experienced engineer might do depending on what you need:

1. Terrain analysis of a large area of Karst country – square kilometres in size – using published maps and photographs
2. Geophysical survey of a small area possibly with a few boreholes
3. Geophysical survey of a tiny area – a proposed construction site – plus some boreholes  .

It wouldn’t take a “money pit” of money to investigate for sinkhole-forming voids if you know the precise location of your proposed structure.

Investigating developed Karst country for sinkholes

If you are concerned about the stability of a developed area, particularly foundation stability, then, depending on the size of the area and the preciseness of the information wanted, the engineer would go through the above steps.  The emphasis would be on Step #2 if you are concerned about a small area.  Or Step #3 if you are concerned about a single structure and wanted precise information.

***

The approach for developed or undeveloped land would be much the same – that of a fairly routine engineering investigation by an experienced person.  It wouldn’t be so expensive for a single structure, a tiny area – a few 1,000s of dollars rather than many 10,000s.  But more, of course, for a larger area, particularly if a lot of precise information was wanted.

It wouldn’t be so newsworthy either particularly if undeveloped land was being investigated.  The reporter’s eyes would glaze over at the thought of covering an engineering story like that.

That’s where we need to get to in Karst country – investigate before at reasonable cost not after when newsworthy sinkholes and problems develop.

References

1. The Chronicle Herald, Thursday, March 14, 2019 page A3
2. What’s wrong with this (sinkhole) picture near Vancouver. Posted February 20, 2019
3. Merriam-Webster dictionary, March, 2019

Routine engineering investigation – the fix – ensures sinkholes don’t undermine our buildings – the problem.

***

That was quite a picture in the newspaper a few days ago of a sinkhole that appeared last August in Oxford, Nova Scotia. (Ref. 1)  And the pictures of the sinkholes in British Columbia a few weeks ago (Ref. 2) and before that – back to Nova Scotia – some time ago in Falmouth..

Striking pictures but sad too when homes are lost, and scary at the thought of potential injuries and death.

But it’s time to stop.  There’s no need for the formation of sinkholes to surprise anyone nor pose a risk..  Nor be a “…a money pit”. (Ref. 1)  There would be no news and no pictures if experienced engineers were involved before these areas were developed.  And every chance some of these areas would have been undeveloped.  Engineers would carry out a standard geotechnical investigation of the ground at a site proposed for construction.  Simple as that.

The news story mentioned a geophysical survey.  That’s an engineering technique that’s been around a long time.  The fact that this is sinkhole country – Karst terrain – has been known a long time too.

Karst is an irregular limestone area with sinkholes, underground streams and caverns. (Ref. 3)

Remote sensing geophysical surveys – sort of like MRIs in medicine – detect features in the ground of interest to land owners.  Features like voids or conditions conducive to the formation of voids.  Sinkholes start as voids in the ground.

Limestone bedrock, gypsum and salt dissolve in the water in the ground to form voids, caverns and underground streams.  The voids get larger with time and eventually the top, or roof of the void, appears at the ground surface – a sinkhole. The voids are said to migrate to the ground surface.

The most recent picture shows red soil around the perimeter of the sinkhole.  This is glacial till – soil deposited by glaciers 1,000s of years ago.  The soil is heavy and would cause the top of a void to break and appear at the ground surface sooner rather than later.

Investigating undeveloped Karst country for sinkholes

What would an engineer do if asked to investigate the foundation conditions at a proposed construction site?  For example, the site of a building, or any of the structures in an urban area, or a residential subdivision or a strip mall.  This would be an engineer experienced in geotechnical or geological work.

They’re not always asked – and it appears not always in Karst country – but what would he do if he were?

He would first check.the published geology maps and aerial photographs of the area available to all of us.  It’s called terrain analysis in engineering.  He would see in the maps that a large area of Nova Scotia – many square kilometres – is underlain by Karst terrain.  He would also see in the photographs evidence of large sinkholes like the one in the picture.  He would tell you that the area is susceptible to the formation of sinkholes.  He would also tell you that he can’t predict where the sinkholes will appear in a large area.

But tell him approximately where you want to construct a subdivision or strip mall and he’ll give you a pretty good idea of the risk of sinkhole development in a small area like that.  Not the location of all future sinkholes but the location of some, and the risk of others.  He would do this after carrying out a geophysical survey.  The survey could be expensive for an area proposed for a subdivision or strip mall.

I did a geophysical survey of an airport runway on South Andros Island in the Bahamas one time.  I was looking for voids that might form sinkholes.  A runway is not unlike a residential street or a strip mall.  You can be sure I ran a lot of closely spaced survey lines down the runway looking for voids.

Tell the engineer precisely where you want to build a house, a multistory building, a bridge, a road, etc., a tiny area, and he will tell you if and where sinkholes will form and undermine your structure.  He would do a geophysical survey.  This wouldn’t be that expensive for a single structure and a good investment considering construction costs.  You might consider relocating the structure after the survey..

If the risk of sinkholes forming is low and you still want to build there then he would drill boreholes at the location of your structure and any features of interest found during the geophysical survey.  Boreholes retrieve samples of bedrock like limestone or indicate when the borehole passed through a void.  It’s called ground proofing in engineering work that relies on non invasive, non destructive geophysical surveying and terrain analysis.

Summarizing, this is what the experienced engineer might do depending on what you need:

1. Terrain analysis of a large area of Karst country – square kilometres in size – using published maps and photographs
2. Geophysical survey of a small area possibly with a few boreholes
3. Geophysical survey of a tiny area – a proposed construction site – plus some boreholes  .

It wouldn’t take a “money pit” of money to investigate for sinkhole-forming voids if you know the precise location of your proposed structure.

Investigating developed Karst country for sinkholes

If you are concerned about the stability of a developed area, particularly foundation stability, then, depending on the size of the area and the preciseness of the information wanted, the engineer would go through the above steps.  The emphasis would be on Step #2 if you are concerned about a small area.  Or Step #3 if you are concerned about a single structure and wanted precise information.

***

The approach for developed or undeveloped land would be much the same – that of a fairly routine engineering investigation by an experienced person.  It wouldn’t be so expensive for a single structure, a tiny area – a few 1,000s of dollars rather than many 10,000s.  But more, of course, for a larger area, particularly if a lot of precise information was wanted.

It wouldn’t be so newsworthy either particularly if undeveloped land was being investigated.  The reporter’s eyes would glaze over at the thought of covering an engineering story like that.

That’s where we need to get to in Karst country – investigate before at reasonable cost not after when newsworthy sinkholes and problems develop.

References

1. The Chronicle Herald, Thursday, March 14, 2019 page A3
2. What’s wrong with this (sinkhole) picture near Vancouver. Posted February 20, 2019
3. Merriam-Webster dictionary, March, 2019

Some of you might be interested in the handbook, Practical Guide to Comparative Advertising: Dare to Compare, by Ruth M. Corbin et al. 1st edition 2018. (Ref. 1)  I haven’t read the book but mention it because Ruth Corbin writes well and jargon-free

I know this because I’ve read some of her work that is more closely related to my forensic engineering practice. (Refs 2, 3)  In addition, this is a handbook and they’re always nice to have on the shelf.  I also met and heard Ruth speak and present at the Expert Witness Forum East in Toronto last year.

Comparative advertising can be defined as a marketing strategy in which a company’s product or service is presented as superior when compared to a competitors. (Ref. 4)

Google the title and carefully read Ruth’s description of the contents and the handbook’s key features and her opinion of the readership.  You’re certain to be covered in the latter.  If I were one of you – a civil litigation lawyer, a judge, an insurance claims manager, an adjuster, a representative – and not a forensic engineer, I would take a good look at this handbook

Why am I mentioning this book?  Because I like to see good writers get published.  Also because the book does relate to the practice of some of you.  It’s by an author who I know writes well and, in addition, it’s a handbook – they’re always easy to understand.  Finally, I’m certain Ruth would associate with co-authors who are equally clear writers.

.

I commented last month on the basis for an expert’s hypothesis during the merit assessment stage and gave a few examples. (Ref. 1) You may remember that the hypothesis or initial oral report comes from:

1. Your briefing
2. The expert’s experience
3. Published data on causes

The examples of published data were quite informative. (Refs 2, 3, 4) The most detailed was about the 209 ways a building can fail – useful information and readily available to the expert when assessing cause. (Ref. 2)

There’s more.  A building is only one type of structure in the built environment.  There are actually about 18 different types as listed below. (after Ref. 4)  Each structure can fail in several different ways.  The causes have been researched and published for most of the 18 like the 209 causes for a building.

(It was Ref. 4 that prompted this blog update – it extends our understanding of failure and accidents to all types of structure)

Your urban environment where you live contains some or all of the following types of structure:

1. Bridges
2. Dams
3. Tunnels
4. Roads and highways
5. Embankments
6. Excavations
7. Natural, and man-made fill slopes
8. Buildings like residential, commercial, industrial and multi-story (There are more buildings in the world than any other type of structure)
9. Foundations
10. Basements
11. Retaining walls
12. Infra structures like pipelines
13. Water, storm and sewer pipelines
14. Tanks
15. Storage bins
16. Chimneys and stacks
17. Towers; both guyed and free standing

The causes of failure of these structures are categorized according to the:

• Structure – those listed above and again in the Appendix
• Main Component in the structure – beam and slab, an arch, long span roof, etc
• The component’s Material – steel, concrete, wood, masonry, etc.

The categorization is more detailed and technical than this but the above gives you an idea..

(The Appendix lists the different structures, their components and component materials)

The researchers identified the several different ways each Structure can fail.  For example, What causes bridges to fall down?  Towers to topple?  The foundations of multi-story buildings to settle and subside?

They then looked closer at the main Component(s) in each structure and identified the different ways these failed.  For example, What are the different causes of cracks in concrete floor slabs?  Why do roofs collapse?

Finally, they looked closer still at the different Materials used in the components of structures and how they failed.  Why does steel break?  It certainly does at times.  What causes concrete-wood connections to come apart?

The result is a wealth of published information for the expert to consider when forming a hypothesis – 100s of different ways a structure, it’s components, and the component’s materials can fail in the built environment.  All researched and published and available to guide the expert as you brief him during the merit assessment stage.

He’s thinking Structure, Component, Material as you talk and forming an initial hypothesis, or, more correctly, an initial oral report to guide you on whether to take the case or in assessing the claim.  It might be a rough report but it’s well founded on a lot of published data – and better than not talking to an expert.

(It occurs to me this late hour that similar data could be compiled and published on the causes of personal injury accidents like slip, trip and fall accidents)

References

1. Where does an expert’s initial hypothesis come from?  Posted February 25, 2019
2. Nicastro, David H., ed., Failure Mechanisms in Building Construction, ASCE Press, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia 1997 (Readily available by interlibrary loan from Memorial University, Newfoundland)
3. How many ways can a building fail, and possibly result in civil litigation or an insurance claim? Posted July 10, 2014
4. Janney, Jack R., Guide to Investigation of Structural Failures, ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers) 1979, 1986

Appendix

(The following lists are after Ref. 4 with some additions based on what I’ve seen over the years)

Structure: Causes of failure have been researched and identified according to the following types of structure: