Originally posted by Giles I'll jump on this merry-go-round one more time...
Don't agree with your defination Trevor. "Expert" is someone who has considerable skill and knowledge in something. You CAN therefore have more than one.
If you applied your defination then that means you could not have an "Expert" on the other side of the case (i.e. defance or prosecution) as one would have to be inferior to the other and therefore not be classed as an "expert". - And as we know you almost always have "Experts" on both sides of the fences. This leads to the position where one expert will be 'beileved' (will be on the winning side) and the other will not. So as AET are an "expert" themselves getting more than one opinion on John's side would be a definate advantage - to avoid "their word against ours".
- As I said previously, my company does this.
You can not have two expert witnesses on one side. Legally it is not possible. You can have two engineers' reports about the turbo and have the engineers in court to present their evidence, but not if they both agree with each other as that is pointless in the eyes of the court.
You can only call one expert witness on each field you address as to call two would bring into question the evidence of the other if the do not agree, and if they do agree the judge will be well pissed off that you wasted the courts time in giving the same evidence twice.
Now you notice that I did not question your post about turbos? Thats because I know Jack Schit about them. I suggest you reciprocate.
Humm, perhaps I didn't word my post as well as I could have as I agree with everything you have just posted.
I agree with you as you would not (could not -as you said the courts would see it as a waste of time) have 16 "expert witnesses" in the same field on the same side saying the same thing (or indeed differing). 1 Expert per side per 'field'. (so 1 would be enough for this).
What I was disputing was what I interpreted your previous post as saying that there can only be 1 "expert witness" per case (in total). If this was what you were saying who decides if they are on the prosecution or defence (as you can always find an "expert" to tell you what you want to hear). Could you not then get the situation when each side offers an expert and so someone (the judge??) would have to say "we will believe A over B, and so only A can give evidence. If so wouldn't this mean the judge would have to be more of an expert than the experts to be able to decide who's opinon is correct??
If you say this is indeed the case then I bow to your superior legal knowledge. But I know my firm has been on one side as an "expert witness" with another PQS firm represnting the other.
If I misread your previous post and we are actually in agreement then I apologise and will edit this post to delete the above and add an agreement statement.
Just to clarify all my previous posts - they did not say "have more than one "expert Witness" in court saying the same thing. What they said was get more than one indpendant report by people who could be classed as "experts". This would give extra credability to Johns argument (obviously you would only use the ones that agree with each other) as he can demonstrate he thoroughly checked it was at fault. You would obviously then only have one "expert" in court (for your side) - if required at all.
Hope you are not taking this discussion as an argument, or indeed anything personal as it most deifinatly is not. I see it as simply a reasoned discussion on what has been posted (albeit possibly straying from Johns origional path - sorry John).
Originally posted by Giles
What I was disputing was what I interpreted your previous post as saying that there can only be 1 "expert witness" per case (in total). If this was what you were saying who decides if they are on the prosecution or defence (as you can always find an "expert" to tell you what you want to hear).
You present a person as an expert witness, the judge looks at the persons credentials and either accepts that that person is the expert or declines your representation is the expert, and accepts that the defence's presentation is expert. Thats it. It is up to the judge. One witness per trial.
That witness then adresses the court and is neither for the defence or the presecution as he can only present fact, not opinion.
And no, I am not tryint to cause an argument, just pointing out that gaining the advantage of an expert witness in a court can be a bit of a hit and miss afair really. You can spend some serious cash on a witness preparation and the judge refuse to accept him as expert.... And yes, it does happen!
...in the meantime, I'm told that I need to pay £420+vat to bring the AET "new" turbo up to stock spec.
I informed AET of the situation, but they pretend they haven't received the email!
They responded saying they haven't heard from me for days regarding the return of the 'other' unit, so next monday they'll charge me for it (too) £320+vat, plus £200+vat as surcharge