One of the primary reasons for a plaintiff in a lawsuit, or even a potential lawsuit, to shop around before retaining the services of an “expert,” is to be sure that the outcome of their experts report will support the legal theory of liability behind their case. That being said, however, the retention of an expert is expensive and not all law firms can afford to finance an “expert-driven” litigation.
For more of the details regarding the findings of the State of California, please click on the following link to the Lake Elsinore /Wildomar Patch:
In the case of the Autumnwood homeowners, they have sought to bolster their theory of legal liability, that the ground underneath their homes is contaminated, by involving experts from the State of California to make their case, albeit unsuccessfully.
Unsurprisingly, the environmental experts from the State of California have completed their work and their reported conclusions seriously undermine any future litigation by some members of the Autumnwood residents, past and present. By the way, criticism of the reporting as premature , even if justified, will not change the negative impact and effect of the conclusion.
In fact, if any of the Autunnwood homeowners, involved in any litigation, present or future, eventually retain their own experts, those experts will have to convince a future jury that their conclusions are superior to those of any defendant’s experts, as well as the independent conclusions and testimony of experts from the State of California.
In the world of litigation, the Autumnwood homeowners have only further diminished the likelihood of a positive legal outcome.
Comments can be made to email@example.com.
Litigation 101: Never ask a question that you already don’t know the answer to.