Many attorneys, as soon as they are retained, will hire an investigator to examine the location of an accident or injury, take photographs and interview witnesses.
Only later is an expert hired to evaluate and if necessary testify regarding the conditions that existed and caused the accident. The rational is partly economic. The necessity for an expert is not yet established and an investigator is less expensive.
The problem with this scenario is that often the expert is asked for an opinion having only seen the photographs. He has not been given the opportunity to see the scene and for that reason is probably less creditable than had he been able to look at the accident scene personally, and in the condition which existed at the time.
An investigator serves many good purposes, but looking at the scene and photographing it should be left to the expert. He knows what to look for, and what to preserve in photographs.
Two cases immediately come to mind. One was a fire on an ocean going ship tied up at a terminal that was cut loose by the terminal personnel and as a result became a total constructive loss. The experts representing the vessel were aboard the vessel repeatedly. The experts representing the terminal never went aboard.
Testimony on the location of the fire on the ship and the cause of it by the vessel's experts was as a result of on board observations. The other side's experts looked at photographs and drew conclusions from them. In court, the credibility of the terminal's experts was seriously impaired by this procedure.
A second and current case is where a longshoreman was injured when his foot went through a gap in the catwalk decking. The plaintiff's expert has limited photographs of the scene but the photographs did not fully answer several of the questions which the expert was asked on cross examination. Had the decking originally been secured? What held it into place? Was this condition limited to this one area or did it exist all over the vessel? Was the decking loose?
Had the expert been the investigator in this case, he would have been aboard the vessel and have the answers to these and other questions which now have been lost. The vessel is not available, and even if it was, conditions over the years would have changed.
It is strongly suggested that the "experts" be used to make initial visits the scene as soon as possible after an attorney is retained. Where this is done, no visit by an investigator would be needed.
Home ! Search Page ! Master index ! Table of Contents for This Issue