January 2011
Superior Court Judge Herman Smith entered summary judgment in favor of an expert witness sued for negligence ("expert malpractice") by a disappointed litigant.
Superior Court Judge Herman Smith entered summary judgment in favor of an expert witness sued for negligence ("expert malpractice") by a disappointed litigant. The expert witness was represented by
Thomas E. Peisch and
Ronald M. Jacobs .
The plaintiff alleged that the expert witness did not adequately prepare a damages formulation, causing the plaintiff to lose a 7-figure claim against a national health products company. Judge Smith agreed with the arguments made by Messrs. Peisch and Jacobs that the economic loss rule barred the claims as a matter of law. Judge Smith rejected the plaintiff's suggestion that the expert witness owed the plaintiff a fiduciary duty, which would have constituted an exception to the economic loss doctrine. The Judge also entered judgment in favor of the lawyers who hired the expert witness, finding that the plaintiff's claimed damages were too speculative and in some instances contradictory.