As an engineering expert witness I am called upon to explain what happened in an accident, including the cause or causes ('Accident Reconstruction'.) My opinion may result in benefit to either plaintiff or defendant but I do not accept employment with the understanding that my opinion will benefit the side which employs me. I "calls em as I sees em." If my opinion benefits the side which employs me I am named to the court as that side's expert witness; if it is unfavorable to that side I am dismissed but my opinion remains useful to it in settlement bargaining. As long as I am a consultant my work is priviledged but when I become a named expert my files are open. Therefore, while a consultant, I communicut only verbally until I am directed to write.
A creative form of evidence is a proposed product improvement which would have prevented the accident without being too costly for a commercial product. A record of such engineering in the expert's career is a basis for believing the proposal.
Deciding whether or not victim compensation should be limited to Workers Compensation Insurance is often an essential issue in the case. However this decision is not an expert's engineering opinion although the expert's engineering opinion may be a deciding element in the court's decision, particularly if there is a question of product liability. The expert's report and testimony should be limited to his expert opinion regardless of any non-expert opinion he may have.