Why Plaintiffs Usually Retain Their Own….

….EXPERTS

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:

http://lakeelsinore-wildomar.patch.com/groups/politics-and-elections/p/state-testing-finds-wildomar-neighborhood-is-not-contaminated

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 zakturango@excite.com.

Litigation 101: Never ask a question that you already don’t know the answer to.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: