Expert witnesses are often helpful in proving and disputing a claim, but their testimony is always subject to a credibility determination.  In the recent New Jersey court case of Wilson v. Woodfield Developers, LLC, the appellate court confirmed the trial judge’s dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint for failure to provide credible evidence despite the testimony of several experts.

Plaintiff filed a complaint against Woodfield Developers, which constructed her residence, claiming damages from water seepage in the home’s basement, and other defects.  During a bench trial, both parties presented expert testimony regarding the water seepage.  Plaintiff’s two experts testified that the water seepage was due to a blocked drain pipe caused by improper installation, and design/construction defects.  The defense presented expert testimony to dispute those findings, and developed credibility issues during cross-examination of plaintiff’s experts.  The judge found that the testimony of the plaintiff’s experts were inconclusive, insufficient to support plaintiff’s allegations, and dismissed the complaint.  The decision was sustained on appeal.

This case highlights the importance of retaining a good expert to provide credible testimony, and that cross-examination of plaintiff’s experts is often key to the case.

Thanks to Heather Aquino for her contribution to this post.