Loading
Expert Witness Insights by Area of Expertise
8 min read
Areas of Expertise :
Forensic Engineering, Failure Analysis, Engineering, Accident Reconstruction, Evidence Analysis & Preservation
Published Date:
Last Modified Date:
Forensic engineering uses engineering knowledge and methods to investigate accidents, failures, property damage, and other technical issues that may arise in litigation or alternative dispute resolution. A qualified forensic engineering expert witness may inspect evidence, analyze designs and records, conduct testing, reconstruct events, evaluate failure mechanisms, and explain technical findings.
The National Society of Professional Engineers and National Academy of Forensic Engineers describe forensic engineering as the application of engineering to matters that relate or may relate to the legal system. Their joint position advises forensic engineers to work within areas supported by their experience or basic engineering knowledge and to provide objective reporting and testimony.
For attorneys, the key question is what type of engineering expertise and methodology best fit the disputed technical issues.
This guide explains when forensic engineering may be useful in litigation, what an expert may analyze, what attorneys should expect from an expert report, and how courts evaluate engineering expert testimony.
Forensic engineers may be particularly useful when an accident or disputed condition presents technical questions that benefit from specialized engineering knowledge.
Depending on the case and the engineer's qualifications, forensic engineering may be relevant to matters involving:
The specific discipline matters. A mechanical engineer may be well suited to a machinery failure but not necessarily to a geotechnical, electrical, metallurgical, biomechanical, or fire-origin question. An expert's qualifications should match the opinions the expert will be asked to provide.
A forensic engineer may address technical issues such as failure mechanisms, accident sequences, or compliance with identified engineering requirements. The expert does not determine the legal result of the case.
Forensic engineering expert witnesses analyze accidents, failures, property damage, structures, products, equipment, and other technical issues in litigation. This article explains early evidence preservation, engineering methods and testing, expert reports, Rule 702 admissibility, trial visuals, and common problems involving discipline fit, assumptions, and unsupported conclusions.
Forensic Analysis
Construction Engineering
Structure Failures
Accident Investigation and Reconstruction
Fracture Analysis
Metallurgical Failure Analysis
Causation Analysis
Preservation
Forensic engineering uses engineering knowledge and methods to investigate accidents, failures, property damage, and other technical issues that may arise in litigation or alternative dispute resolution. A qualified forensic engineering expert witness may inspect evidence, analyze designs and records, conduct testing, reconstruct events, evaluate failure mechanisms, and explain technical findings.
The National Society of Professional Engineers and National Academy of Forensic Engineers describe forensic engineering as the application of engineering to matters that relate or may relate to the legal system. Their joint position advises forensic engineers to work within areas supported by their experience or basic engineering knowledge and to provide objective reporting and testimony.
For attorneys, the key question is what type of engineering expertise and methodology best fit the disputed technical issues.
This guide explains when forensic engineering may be useful in litigation, what an expert may analyze, what attorneys should expect from an expert report, and how courts evaluate engineering expert testimony.
Forensic engineers may be particularly useful when an accident or disputed condition presents technical questions that benefit from specialized engineering knowledge.
Depending on the case and the engineer's qualifications, forensic engineering may be relevant to matters involving:
The specific discipline matters. A mechanical engineer may be well suited to a machinery failure but not necessarily to a geotechnical, electrical, metallurgical, biomechanical, or fire-origin question. An expert's qualifications should match the opinions the expert will be asked to provide.
A forensic engineer may address technical issues such as failure mechanisms, accident sequences, or compliance with identified engineering requirements. The expert does not determine the legal result of the case.
Early retention can be important when physical conditions may change, damaged components may be repaired or discarded, vehicles may be released, or testing may alter the evidence.
An engineer retained early may help counsel identify:
In federal civil litigation governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 34 allows a party, within the permitted scope of discovery, to request inspection, testing, or sampling of tangible things and access to property for specified inspection or testing activities.
Preservation issues require particular care. In Silvestri v. General Motors Corp., the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed dismissal after the accident vehicle was repaired before General Motors received notice and an opportunity to inspect its post-accident condition. The Fourth Circuit agreed with the district court that the spoliation was highly prejudicial, but spoliation standards and remedies depend on the jurisdiction and circumstances.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e) separately addresses lost electronically stored information. If the rule's requirements are met and the court finds prejudice, it may order measures no greater than necessary to cure that prejudice. More severe measures under Rule 37(e)(2) require a finding of intent to deprive another party of the information's use in the litigation.
A forensic engineering investigation should begin with the technical questions presented by the dispute, not with a preferred conclusion.
Depending on the matter, an engineer may review physical evidence, site photographs and measurements, design information, testing results, applicable technical requirements, and other relevant case materials.
Methods vary by discipline and may include finite element analysis, accident reconstruction, fracture or metallurgical analysis, nondestructive evaluation, laboratory testing, engineering calculations, or computer simulation.
A sophisticated tool does not by itself establish reliability. The engineer should be able to explain why the method fits the problem, the basis for key inputs and assumptions, how results were checked when appropriate, and what limitations affect the conclusions.
This connection between the evidence, methodology, and resulting opinion is particularly important under Federal Rule of Evidence 702.
In federal civil litigation governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, witnesses covered by Rule 26(a)(2)(B), including retained experts and employees whose regular duties involve giving expert testimony, generally must prepare and sign a written report unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court.
The report must contain:
A useful engineering report should also clearly identify the investigation, methods, assumptions, limitations, and reasoning supporting each opinion.
Rule 26(e) also imposes supplementation obligations. For an expert required to provide a Rule 26(a)(2)(B) report, the party's duty to supplement extends to information contained in the report and information given during the expert's deposition.
Rule 26(b)(4)(B) protects drafts of reports or disclosures required under Rule 26(a)(2). Rule 26(b)(4)(C) separately protects certain attorney-expert communications, with exceptions involving compensation, facts or data provided by counsel and considered by the expert, and assumptions provided by counsel and relied upon by the expert.
In federal proceedings governed by the Federal Rules of Evidence, engineering expert testimony is subject to Rule 702. The proponent must demonstrate to the court that it is more likely than not that the testimony satisfies the rule's admissibility requirements.
The witness also must be qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.
The court considers whether:
The 2023 amendment clarified and emphasized that these requirements are matters for the court to determine under Rule 702, including whether the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data and reflects a reliable application of the expert's principles and methods.
In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the Supreme Court described a flexible inquiry into scientific reliability. In Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, the Court confirmed that this gatekeeping responsibility also applies to engineering and other technical or specialized testimony. The relevant reliability considerations depend on the field, issue, and facts presented.
General Electric Co. v. Joiner also permits a court to examine whether there is too great an analytical gap between the underlying data and the opinion offered. An expert's qualifications do not eliminate the need for a reliable connection between the evidence, reasoning, and resulting opinion.
State-court admissibility standards may differ, so attorneys should also review the governing law of the applicable jurisdiction.
Forensic engineers may use photographs, diagrams, calculations, models, animations, or simulations to explain technical testimony. Attorneys should distinguish between evidence and materials used only as illustrative aids.
Federal Rule of Evidence 107, effective December 1, 2024, governs illustrative aids. A court may allow an aid when it would help the trier of fact understand evidence or argument and its usefulness is not substantially outweighed by risks such as unfair prejudice, confusion, or misleading the jury. An illustrative aid is not evidence and generally is not provided to the jury during deliberations unless all parties consent or the court orders otherwise for good cause.
Rule 1006 serves a different purpose. It allows qualifying summaries, charts, or calculations to be admitted as evidence to prove the content of voluminous admissible writings, recordings, or photographs that cannot conveniently be examined in court. The underlying originals or duplicates must be made available as required. Materials offered only as illustrative aids are governed by Rule 107.
Counsel and the expert should therefore identify the purpose of each proposed visual.
Common problems when working with forensic engineering experts include:
What does a forensic engineering expert witness do?
A forensic engineering expert witness may investigate or analyze technical questions involving accidents, failures, property damage, structures, products, equipment, or engineering systems. Depending on the assignment, the expert may inspect evidence, perform testing or calculations, evaluate failure mechanisms, and explain technical opinions.
When should an attorney retain a forensic engineer?
Retention should be considered early when the dispute involves physical evidence, changing site conditions, potential testing, or specialized engineering questions. Early consultation may help identify preservation, inspection, discovery, and testing needs before important evidence becomes unavailable.
What must a federal forensic engineering expert report contain?
When Rule 26(a)(2)(B) applies, the report generally must include the expert's opinions and reasons, facts or data considered, supporting exhibits, required qualification information, prior testimony, and compensation. Attorneys should also review applicable scheduling orders, local rules, and case-specific requirements.
Does the Daubert framework apply to engineering experts?
Yes, in federal proceedings governed by the Federal Rules of Evidence. The Supreme Court held in Kumho Tire that the trial court's expert-testimony gatekeeping responsibility applies to technical and engineering expertise as well as scientific testimony. State evidentiary standards may differ.
Can a forensic engineer determine who is legally liable?
A forensic engineer may offer opinions on technical matters within the expert's qualifications and supported by an appropriate methodology, subject to the applicable evidentiary rules. Those opinions may address failure mechanisms, accident dynamics, technical cause-and-effect relationships, or identified technical requirements.
Whether the evidence supports negligence, liability, or another legal consequence depends on the governing law and the determinations assigned to the court or factfinder.
Early retention can be important when physical conditions may change, damaged components may be repaired or discarded, vehicles may be released, or testing may alter the evidence.
An engineer retained early may help counsel identify:
In federal civil litigation governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 34 allows a party, within the permitted scope of discovery, to request inspection, testing, or sampling of tangible things and access to property for specified inspection or testing activities.
Preservation issues require particular care. In Silvestri v. General Motors Corp., the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed dismissal after the accident vehicle was repaired before General Motors received notice and an opportunity to inspect its post-accident condition. The Fourth Circuit agreed with the district court that the spoliation was highly prejudicial, but spoliation standards and remedies depend on the jurisdiction and circumstances.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e) separately addresses lost electronically stored information. If the rule's requirements are met and the court finds prejudice, it may order measures no greater than necessary to cure that prejudice. More severe measures under Rule 37(e)(2) require a finding of intent to deprive another party of the information's use in the litigation.
A forensic engineering investigation should begin with the technical questions presented by the dispute, not with a preferred conclusion.
Depending on the matter, an engineer may review physical evidence, site photographs and measurements, design information, testing results, applicable technical requirements, and other relevant case materials.
Methods vary by discipline and may include finite element analysis, accident reconstruction, fracture or metallurgical analysis, nondestructive evaluation, laboratory testing, engineering calculations, or computer simulation.
A sophisticated tool does not by itself establish reliability. The engineer should be able to explain why the method fits the problem, the basis for key inputs and assumptions, how results were checked when appropriate, and what limitations affect the conclusions.
This connection between the evidence, methodology, and resulting opinion is particularly important under Federal Rule of Evidence 702.
In federal civil litigation governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, witnesses covered by Rule 26(a)(2)(B), including retained experts and employees whose regular duties involve giving expert testimony, generally must prepare and sign a written report unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court.
The report must contain:
A useful engineering report should also clearly identify the investigation, methods, assumptions, limitations, and reasoning supporting each opinion.
Rule 26(e) also imposes supplementation obligations. For an expert required to provide a Rule 26(a)(2)(B) report, the party's duty to supplement extends to information contained in the report and information given during the expert's deposition.
Rule 26(b)(4)(B) protects drafts of reports or disclosures required under Rule 26(a)(2). Rule 26(b)(4)(C) separately protects certain attorney-expert communications, with exceptions involving compensation, facts or data provided by counsel and considered by the expert, and assumptions provided by counsel and relied upon by the expert.
In federal proceedings governed by the Federal Rules of Evidence, engineering expert testimony is subject to Rule 702. The proponent must demonstrate to the court that it is more likely than not that the testimony satisfies the rule's admissibility requirements.
The witness also must be qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.
The court considers whether:
The 2023 amendment clarified and emphasized that these requirements are matters for the court to determine under Rule 702, including whether the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data and reflects a reliable application of the expert's principles and methods.
In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the Supreme Court described a flexible inquiry into scientific reliability. In Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, the Court confirmed that this gatekeeping responsibility also applies to engineering and other technical or specialized testimony. The relevant reliability considerations depend on the field, issue, and facts presented.
General Electric Co. v. Joiner also permits a court to examine whether there is too great an analytical gap between the underlying data and the opinion offered. An expert's qualifications do not eliminate the need for a reliable connection between the evidence, reasoning, and resulting opinion.
State-court admissibility standards may differ, so attorneys should also review the governing law of the applicable jurisdiction.
Forensic engineers may use photographs, diagrams, calculations, models, animations, or simulations to explain technical testimony. Attorneys should distinguish between evidence and materials used only as illustrative aids.
Federal Rule of Evidence 107, effective December 1, 2024, governs illustrative aids. A court may allow an aid when it would help the trier of fact understand evidence or argument and its usefulness is not substantially outweighed by risks such as unfair prejudice, confusion, or misleading the jury. An illustrative aid is not evidence and generally is not provided to the jury during deliberations unless all parties consent or the court orders otherwise for good cause.
Rule 1006 serves a different purpose. It allows qualifying summaries, charts, or calculations to be admitted as evidence to prove the content of voluminous admissible writings, recordings, or photographs that cannot conveniently be examined in court. The underlying originals or duplicates must be made available as required. Materials offered only as illustrative aids are governed by Rule 107.
Counsel and the expert should therefore identify the purpose of each proposed visual.
Common problems when working with forensic engineering experts include:
What does a forensic engineering expert witness do?
A forensic engineering expert witness may investigate or analyze technical questions involving accidents, failures, property damage, structures, products, equipment, or engineering systems. Depending on the assignment, the expert may inspect evidence, perform testing or calculations, evaluate failure mechanisms, and explain technical opinions.
When should an attorney retain a forensic engineer?
Retention should be considered early when the dispute involves physical evidence, changing site conditions, potential testing, or specialized engineering questions. Early consultation may help identify preservation, inspection, discovery, and testing needs before important evidence becomes unavailable.
What must a federal forensic engineering expert report contain?
When Rule 26(a)(2)(B) applies, the report generally must include the expert's opinions and reasons, facts or data considered, supporting exhibits, required qualification information, prior testimony, and compensation. Attorneys should also review applicable scheduling orders, local rules, and case-specific requirements.
Does the Daubert framework apply to engineering experts?
Yes, in federal proceedings governed by the Federal Rules of Evidence. The Supreme Court held in Kumho Tire that the trial court's expert-testimony gatekeeping responsibility applies to technical and engineering expertise as well as scientific testimony. State evidentiary standards may differ.
Can a forensic engineer determine who is legally liable?
A forensic engineer may offer opinions on technical matters within the expert's qualifications and supported by an appropriate methodology, subject to the applicable evidentiary rules. Those opinions may address failure mechanisms, accident dynamics, technical cause-and-effect relationships, or identified technical requirements.
Whether the evidence supports negligence, liability, or another legal consequence depends on the governing law and the determinations assigned to the court or factfinder.
Forensic Analysis
Construction Engineering
Structure Failures
Accident Investigation and Reconstruction
Fracture Analysis
Metallurgical Failure Analysis
Causation Analysis
Preservation
Expert Witness Insights by Area of Expertise
Expert Witness Insights by Area of Expertise