Sterling Anthony – Page 4 – Packaging Expert Witness

Packaging expert witness on intermodal cargo

by Sterling Anthony, CPP, expert witness, packaging, warnings, patent infringement, cargo loading & securement, insurance claims

Synopsis:

A shipment of beer out of China into the United States subsequently was declared unfit for consumption, and, therefore, a total loss. The beer had suffered organoleptic changes that negatively affected appearance, smell, and taste.

The shipment had been made in an intermodal container and had traveled by highway, rail, and ocean. The importing had been handled by a logistics company that arranged for transportation, warehousing, and documentation.

The ensuing litigation via an insurance claim brought by the importer against the logistics company alleged negligence in cargo care and an unnecessary time delay.

I was retained by the attorney for the Defendant.

My opinions:

The direct and proximate causes of the loss were choices in the type of packaging and the type of intermodal container.

The beer arrived stateside, physically intact, that is to say, without compromise to the palletized loads and without damage to the individual glass bottles.

The bottles were flint (clear) glass. Green or amber would have been better choices because they protect better against the harmful effects of light; relatedly, discovery revealed that the beer had been under lighted storage for an extended period prior to having been loaded into the intermodal container.

The intermodal container was not——but should have been—— the refrigerated type, known in the parlance as a “reefer.”

Discovery revealed that the intermodal container had sat at dockside at a port in China for more than a day beyond the scheduled loading; however, the logistics company had delivered the intermodal container on time, after which, the company had no authority over port operations. Since the time of year was summer, it could be reasonably inferred that the temperature inside the non-refrigerated intermodal container rose.

Discovery revealed that at no time did the logistics company hold itself out to be an expert in the factors that determine beer quality.

Discovery revealed that this was the Plaintiff’s inaugural importing of beer; that notwithstanding, a universally-held expectation and assumption is that being an importer is to have extensive knowledge about the salient characteristics of the product imported.

As the importer, Plaintiff knew, or should have known, that choices in packaging and in transportation equipment impact the quality of beer. Discovery revealed that Plaintiff made both choices. The latter choice was made knowing that a refrigerated intermodal container was an option. Given that international/intermodal shipments, by definition, involve considerable distances that can complicate being aware of conditions on a real-time basis, it’s prudent to build in margins-of-safety in all phases of planning.

Result:

The case settled.

Sterling Anthony, CPP, is a consultant to the industrial, institutional, and government sectors and an expert to the legal community. He is a former manager at Fortune 100 companies and a former instructor at two major universities. His contact information is: 100 Renaissance Center-Box 43176, Detroit, MI 48243; (office) 313-531-1875; (cell) 313-623-0522; (fax) 313-531-1972; thepackagingexpertwitness@gmail; www.thepackagingexpertwitness.com

A packaging expert witness should avoid indefensible opinions

by Sterling Anthony, CPP, expert witness, packaging, warnings, patent infringement, cargo loading & securement, insurance claims

A packaging expert witness can become infamous for indefensible opinions, and the consequences can be ruinous. It only takes one celebrated case, and celebrity comes easily in this era of 24-hour news channels, social media, and YouTube——all in addition to the traditional channels that attorneys tap in vetting an expert.

No expert would jeopardize a career, at least not intentionally; however, toxic cases don’t carry warning labels. An expert needs to develop perspectives that protect against the formulating of indefensible opinions, opinions that later will have to be worn around the neck like a yoke.

During initial discussions with a potential attorney-client, the expert should seek information necessary to determine whether the case falls within the expert’s expertise. Some attorneys are given to going beyond that point, generous with details. The expert politely should interrupt and announce an interest or decline further consideration. In the event of the former, the expert should offer to forward the pertinent documents, i.e. curriculum vitae, fee schedules, references, etc. That way, the expert won’t end up conflicted, if not chosen but afterward is contacted by the opposing side.

The greater threat is that too much initial information can trigger the hard sell on the part of an expert, who, eager to land the case, endorses the attorney’s theories, seemingly unmindful of yet not having reviewed any case materials. Such a scenario subsequently might develop along these lines: the expert is retained; and, afterwards, the expert formulates opinions shaped by the prior endorsement, rather than by objective and ethical analysis.

Even when information overload is not a factor, an expert can inadvertently end up saddled with indefensible opinions, typically under one of two scenarios.

One is that of the relatively new expert, desperate for business and willing to say whatever is thought to be desired. That expert is not sufficiently appreciative of the possible risk to reputation and to future business .

Although it might seem counterintuitive, the other is that of an experienced expert who feels insulated by an impressive curriculum vitae. That expert is not appreciative of the fact that such credentials make indefensible opinions all the more indefensible.

Any expert can expect to be portrayed unfavorably by the opposing attorney as a human vending machine: insert payment and withdraw the desired opinions. “Tell the Court, Mr./Ms. Expert, how much you are being paid to testify in support of the side that retained you.”

An experienced expert will recognize the question as the landmine that it is. The thornier task is to give a response that defends the expert’s integrity while setting a foundation for the defense of the forthcoming opinions. Be that as it may, if the opinions are prima facie indefensible, any attempt to dress them in different garb will reduce the expert to laughable.

For the expert who has given indefensible opinions, there is no refuse in blaming the attorney-client, particularly under the rationale that, had the expert not given the opinions, the attorney would have found another expert who would have given them.

Such is never the concern of an ethical expert; besides, no attorney-client should be averse to being educated about deficiencies in the theory. Thus educated, the attorney-client can weight options, such as settlement, or, if the education comes early enough, not filing the case.

The expert who gives indefensible opinions digs a hole as soon as they are conveyed to the attorney-client, and the hole gets deeper with time. The deepening continues when the indefensible opinions are incorporated into an expert report. From there, they become high-caliber ammunition at deposition, causing the opposing attorney to salivate over the prospect of going to trial. At trial, they cause jurors to roll their eyes incredulously and to disregard the expert. The sequence is bad in its own right, but as previously noted, it won’t be limited to that one specific case.

The attorney-client likely will go unscathed, the case standing as a testimonial to a willingness to go any length to aggressively represent a client. You can’t win them all; therefore, how doggedly an attorney fights means a lot.

An expert is not accorded the same pass. Justifiably. An expert’s stock-in-trade is opinions; therefore, an expert who provides faulty wares can’t expect that fact to go unnoticed

Packaging expert witness discusses corrugated boxes

by Sterling Anthony, CPP, expert witness, packaging, warnings, patent infringement, cargo loading & securement, insurance claims

At least 95% of consumer non-durables are shipped in corrugated boxes, a statistic that speaks to the many positives of corrugated board.

Think of corrugated board as sandwich-like structures, wherein a wavy (hence, the name, corrugated) board is glued between flat, liner boards. The wavy board is called flute and comes in various designations, the most popular being A-flute, B-flute, C-flute, and E-flute. The flutes differ in terms of vertical height and number per linear measure.

The majority of corrugated boxes are single-wall, meaning a flute between two liners; however, corrugated boxes come in double-wall and triple-wall, combining the requisite number of flutes and liners.

Corrugated boxes must have sufficient strength to protect their contents and to endure all reasonably-foreseeable environments associated with said protection; however, the seeming simplicity of corrugated boxes belies the complexity of designing them, given───in no way an exhaustive list───the many combinations of board grades, flute sizes, adhesives, coatings & treatments, and basis weights (a measure of density). In recent times, the era of sustainability has fostered increasing amounts of recycled content in the composition of corrugated boxes, complicating the prediction of and the measurement of performance.

So it turns out that corrugated boxes can be unfit for their intended purposes due to any of the many factors related to their design and manufacture; additionally, unfitness can be the result of pre-manufacture conditions, such as how the corrugated board was stored. Given the aforementioned predominance of corrugated boxes as shipping containers, and the many factors involved in same, failures, of varying degrees of seriousness, are inevitable.

When corrugated boxes fail, product damage is a decided possibility and so too is injury to people. One such scenario is the collapse of a palletized load caused by the inability of the lowermost boxes, in particular, to bear the superimposed weight. Whether litigation is in the form of an insurance claim for damaged goods or in the form of a personal injury/product liability suit, either Plaintiff, Defendant, or both might seek the services of an expert.

The expert should be knowledgeable about, and experienced in, all major aspects of the design, development, and specification of corrugated boxes. Another necessity is a matching expertise in the processes involved in the production of corrugated board and its conversion into boxes. The expert also should be well-versed in the laboratory testing of both corrugated board and corrugated boxes. Additionally, the expert should have a background in logistics and an acquaintance with the associated disciplines of transportation (including the regulations governing corrugated boxes), materials handling, and storage, along with the challenges they present throughout the supply-chain.

Sterling Anthony, CPP, is a consultant to the industrial, institutional, and government sectors and an expert who provides services to the legal community. He is a former manager at Fortune 100 companies and a former instructor at two major universities. His contact information is: 100 Renaissance Center-Box 43176, Detroit, MI 48243; (office) 313-531-1875; (cell) 313-623-0522; (fax) 313-531-1972; thepackagingexpertwitness@gmail; www.thepackagingexpertwitness.com

Packaging expert on newborn blindness case

by Sterling Anthony, CPP, expert witness, packaging, warnings, patent infringement, cargo loading & securement, insurance claims

Case synopsis:

An obstetrician delivered a baby and afterwards placed erythromycin ointment into the newborn’s eyes, a common safeguard against eye infections from bacteria in the birth canal. The ointment had come packaged in a 1-gram metal tube, having a keen dispenser end, the tip of which required breaking off in order to squeeze out the ointment.

Days later, it was discovered that the newborn had become blind in one eye. The tip of the dispenser had not been broken off completely and had ended up in the newborn’s eye, thereafter repeatedly scratching the retina and otherwise damaging the eye such that blindness resulted.

The ensuing litigation against the product manufacturer alleged defective packaging and an unreasonably dangerous product. The physician and the hospital also were sued.

I was retained by the attorney for Plaintiff.

My opinions:

The packaging had a design defect, shared by every exemplar manufactured to that specification. The design defect was that the dispensing tip could be snapped but remain attached, dangling. When an unaware physician administers the ointment, the tip can fall into the eye; in fact, the pressure from the squeezing of the ointment can dislodge a dangling tip and the viscosity of the ointment can entrap the tip, assuring that both ointment and tip end up in the eye.

The packaging had a marketing defect. The defect was the absence of warnings regarding the possibility that a partially detached tip, undetected, might end up in the eye of a newborn.

The design defect and the marketing defect resulted in an unreasonably dangerous product. The unreasonably dangerous product was the direct and proximate cause of the accident.

It was the responsibility of the product manufacturer to have factored into account all reasonably foreseeable conditions under which the packaged product would be used. Such an exercise, performed adequately, would have alerted to the possibility of the subject accident.

There were better, safer ways to package the product; for example, a tube with a dispensing tip that didn’t require breaking, but instead, required a puncture by a pin-like feature molded into the top of a cap.

Since such a package had not been chosen, there should have been warnings, alerting to the hazard and instructing how to assure that the tip has been completely detached before the administering of the ointment. Given the small size of the tube, the warnings additionally could have been printed on a carton and on carton inserts.

Results:

The case settled.

A packaging expert should be responsible AND responsive

by Sterling Anthony, CPP, expert witness, packaging, warnings, patent infringement, cargo loading & securement, insurance claims

A packaging expert witness is responsible for the delivery of services, such as consulting, analysis, site inspection, testing, opining, reporting, and testifying. By responsible is meant an obligation to practice decision-making and control and to be accountable for results. Having credentials and ethics are necessary but not sufficient for the delivery of competent services to the attorney. An expert also needs to be responsive, demonstrating the ability to respond quickly, especially under deadlines; however, the quick response should not be at the sacrifice of quality.

Sometimes an expert will be retained late in the game, for example, after the attorney has failed to obtain an anticipated settlement and soon has to disclose an expert, and perhaps, that expert’s expected topics of testimony, should the case go to trial. The attorney will inform the expert about the timetable and perhaps offer an apology or two. At that point, the expert should not accept the case UNLESS the expert is positive of being able to give the case the requisite priority. An expert’s reluctance to decline a plausible case is understandable, in that every expert desires a sustaining caseload; however, the truly professional expert devotes whatever levels of time and resources that are necessary.

Even under less harried conditions, the expert should proactively exercise time management practices. Every time an expert receives case materials from the attorney, the expert should send an acknowledgement. That’s not just a courtesy; it starts the clock ticking. Even if the attorney’s cover letter open-endedly says, “Please contact me after your review,” the expert should not take inordinately long. An attorney, aware of the volume of materials sent, has an idea——even if unexpressed——of what constitutes a reasonable time for review, and, therefore, will be impressed if the expert delivers before then.

When the need for review is on the part of the attorney, the expert has another opportunity to score points. A prime example is the Expert Report. An attorney appreciates the convenience of receiving the report in ample time to: review; suggest revisions; have them made; and, review again. It’s not unusual for there to be more than one round of that sequence; therefore, an expert should submit the report accordingly.

Any type of report submitted by an opposing expert might require a response; and, not to file one could result in a strategic disadvantage. Under that scenario, an expert should: analyze the report; formulate opinions; discuss them with the attorney; and, write a rebuttal. After that, the aforementioned review/revision/review sequence tacks on more time. An experienced expert will prove equal to the task.

Another area of services in which an expert should be time-conscientious is that of testing. An expert experienced in the type of case at issue would know at the onset if testing is needed and would have a reliable idea of the type. Communicating that information to the attorney allows for effective scheduling, thereby avoiding a situation wherein neither the testing can be conducted nor the results ascertained in time for the intended use.

More examples should not be necessary to make the main point: there is a time element, of varying urgency, to much of what an expert does, giving the expert repeated opportunities to build on a reputation for on-time delivery.

Packaging expert witness discusses levels of packaging

by Sterling Anthony, CPP, expert witness, packaging, warnings, patent infringement, cargo loading & securement, insurance claims

Packaging is first and foremost a system. The physical component of the system—— meaning what’s combined with the goods——comes in three levels, appropriately named: primary, secondary, and tertiary.

Primary packaging is in direct contact with the goods.

Secondary packaging contains one or more primary packages.

Tertiary packaging unitizes the two other levels.

An example of the interrelationships among the three levels is: a can (primary) of soup; a corrugated box (secondary) containing dozens of cans; and, the unitization (tertiary) of dozens of corrugated boxes onto a pallet, strapped and stretch-wrapped.

The traditional definitions notwithstanding, the lines of demarcation among the levels at times can blur. A box for cereal is considered a primary package, although an inner bag is what’s in direct contact with the product.

Not all three levels are present in every type of product; for example, sacks (primary) of fertilizer are palletized (tertiary) and there’s no secondary packaging.

Illustrating a different point, a wood crate and a metal rack perform as primary, secondary, and tertiary packaging.

What never blurs and what is always the case is that the levels are system components that should perform for a combined optimal result. The performance of any one level impacts the performance of the others. If, at any level, the packaging proves unfit, the results are never positive, sometimes causing damage to goods, or of greater concern, sometimes causing personal injury and even death.

In the case of substantial damage to goods and more certainly in the case of personal injury, litigation can ensue. When it does, one or both sides will need a packaging expert. But what should that expert bring?

The expert should be experienced in package design & development at all three levels. The expert also should be experienced in packaging-line operations and the involved machinery, calibration, trouble-shooting, and record-keeping. The expert should be conversant with applicable regulations and standards-of-care and be able to opine on what’s technologically and financially feasible. Overall, the expert should, indeed, be expert, in managing packaging for functionality and safety, consistent with reasonably foreseeable conditions encountered through the service life of the packaging.

Packaging expert on fatal medical error

by Sterling Anthony, CPP, expert witness, packaging, warnings, patent infringement, cargo loading & securement, insurance claims

Case synopsis:

A man at a country club experienced a severe allergic reaction to a bee sting. An ambulance team, consisting of a paramedic and a technician, arrived. During the on-site treatment, the ambulance workers administered the wrong drug. The medical error sent the man into respiratory distress. He was rushed to the hospital but died shortly thereafter.

The mistaken drug had been packaged in a clear IV (intravenous) bag and had a see-through overwrap.

Litigation for wrongful death was filed against the ambulance company and against the manufacturer of the drug that had been mistakenly administered. The allegations against the drug manufacturer were defective packaging and failure-to-warn, the theory being that the mistaken drug was packaged in a manner that facilitated the medical error and that there should have been warnings.

I was retained by the attorney for the Defendant drug manufacturer.

My opinions:

The direct and proximate cause of the medical error was the failure by the ambulance team to read the labeling . The sequence disclosed in their depositions was: the paramedic asked for a saline solution; the technician retrieved a drug named lidocaine, without confirming his believed choice; the paramedic administered the lidocaine, without checking what he’d been handed.

There was nothing about the packaging that prevented nor even hampered the reading of the labeling. The word, lidocaine, was in such bold, large print, that it was the most prominent feature of the labeling. The labeling also incorporated red markings, known in the medical field as indication that the drug is therapeutically-active, which, saline solution is not.

The Complaint alleged that the packaging for the lidocaine should have been more distinguishable, in terms of size, shape, and overall tactile feel, from those of the saline solution. There is a reason for such standardization: it facilitates the procedure for hanging an IV bag, connecting the tubing, and starting the IV drip.

The Complaint alleged that, since lidocaine is a clear liquid, as are various other drugs, the packaging for lidocaine should have been color-coded. Color-coding, however, quickly can become counterproductive. In the midst of corporate colors and other design elements——with their possible hues, tones, shades, and tints——an attempt to assign meaning via colors would overwhelm the memory. Besides, the lidocaine incorporated red coloring, signaling that it’s therapeutically-active.

The Complaint alleged that ambulance workers operate under severe time restraints, and failing to read the labeling is a foreseeable consequence; and, therefore, there should have been warnings. Rather than being an excuse for not having read the labeling, the conditions under which ambulance work is performed make reading the labeling essential; after all, lives are at risk. Additionally, since the ambulance team didn’t read the labeling, including the most salient elements of same, a warning would not have been read under those same circumstances.

The conduct of the ambulance team was indefensible and contrary to their expected levels of knowledge, education, and training.

Result:

The case settled.

The experience of the packaging expert witness

by Sterling Anthony, CPP, expert witness, packaging, warnings, patent infringement, cargo loading & securement, insurance claims

Most packaging expert witnesses can claim a considerable number of years of experience in their specialties. That’s to be expected, since becoming an expert at anything requires an investment in time; therefore, what should differentiate among experts of similar lengths of experience? It’s the type of experience that determines relevancy.

An expert should bring a requisite amount of experience in whatever area is core to a given litigation; nonetheless, it’s possible for that experience to be too narrow. An expert can meet the expected length of experience in a particular industry, for example, and still not be the best choice (or even a good one) if all or most of that experience derives from a single company or institution. Such narrowness can foster myopia and thereby hamper the expert’s ability to creatively provide the attorney with services that reflect a variety of perspectives.

Even when the expert’s industry experience was gained from different companies, the specific job responsibilities deserve consideration. Managerial positions should be regarded as a plus, not only because of the demanded skills but also because of the involved participations and decision-making. Having on-the-job experience, in general, and managerial experience, in particular, should engender an attorney’s confidence that the expert has capabilities in teamwork, meeting deadlines, and producing results. The best experience weighs in heavily on the scales of the practical.

That is not to say that the theoretical should never factor into the scheme of things. That’s particularly true when the expert’s experience includes a stint in academia. Its best when the subjects taught directly relate to the litigation, but even if they don’t, having taught suggests an ability to organize information and to communicate it effectively, in both the spoken and written word. That ability is invaluable to the interactions between the expert and the attorney, and by extension, between the expert and third parties, the most important being a jury.

A question that’s always of relevance in the evaluation of an expert’s experience is: How long has the expert been an expert? It’s tempting to become enamored of an expert who promotes on having been involved in, literally, hundreds of cases. Notwithstanding that such an expert certainly knows the ropes, a caution might well be in order. If the long list is due to full-time work as an expert, or even if expert work constitutes the major portion of income, the expert is subject to being branded by opposing counsel as a hired gun. It behooves an attorney evaluating a full-time expert to probe for vulnerabilities, especially those that opposing counsel might claim are contradictory positions of the expert across different cases.

Once retained, an expert can prove to be an asset or a liability. To maximize the chances for the former while minimizing the chances for the latter, the savvy attorney assigns due diligence to the evaluation process. Given that attorneys sometimes operate under the tyranny of a ticking clock (for example, a deadline for declaring experts), it will benefit the attorney and the expert if the attorney always has a well-thought-out evaluation framework at the ready.

Packaging expert witness discusses functions of packaging

by Sterling Anthony, CPP, expert witness, packaging, warnings, patent infringement, cargo loading & securement, insurance claims

Packaging performs these functions: containment, protection, communication, and utility. Any given packaging attribute can be categorized under one of the functions. Because the functions are interrelated and the lines of demarcation overlap, a given packaging attribute can be categorized under more than one function.

Containment. Packaging restrains a thing or things within prescribed confines, UNTIL such restraints are intentionally removed.

The function is typically associated with the concept of contents: for example, the packaging contains the contents until the packaging is opened and the contents are removed.

A quite different example is lumber, with the packaging consisting of strapping. Here, the packaging keeps the lumber held together until such function is no longer needed.

Examples of the containment functions are of endless variety; however, what they have in common is, that, at some point, packaging and something else are combined into a packaged unit, and that combination should stay intact until intentionally separated.

Implicit in the foregoing comments is that the containment function be maintained throughout all reasonably foreseeable conditions, notably, those associated with handling, storage, transportation, and stocking——among other activities and environments.

When packaging fails the containment function, results can include leaks, spills, and things leaning, rolling, tumbling, and falling, easily leading to injuries and fatalities.

Protection. Protection and containment are so much interdependent as to be almost indistinguishable; however, there are some differences. Packaging provides protection to that which is packaged, against harmful forces. Said forces are shock, vibration, compression, temperature, and atmosphere——just to name the main ones.

The packaging must be imbued with the requisite strength and properties to provide protection. Depending on circumstances, multiple levels (primary, secondary, tertiary) of packaging are applied (see tutorial on levels of packaging).

When packaging fails the protection function, the impacts can range from rendering whatever has been packaged merely blemished, to rendering it unfit for intended purposes.

The protection function is not limited to that which is packaged. It must extend to people, namely, whoever reasonably can be expected to encounter the packaged entity. If, for example, the contents have the potential of inflicting harm, perhaps as a consequence of an inherent property, such as corrosiveness, the packaging must serve as a protective safeguard.

In instances in which the contents ordinarily are deemed safe but can be dangerous in the possession of particular persons——children are the quintessential example——packaging, through features such as child-resistant closures, must provide adequate protection.

Protection isn’t limited to individual things but also extend to collections or assemblies. Cargo that has loosened or otherwise been compromised, such that it cascades down onto the person opening the doors of a truck or intermodal container, for example, has not been protectively packaged. So too, when a packaged load weakens during handling or storage to a degree that it poses a safety hazard.

When packaging fails the protection function, the results can be damaged or loss goods, leading to injuries and fatalities, and both.

Communication. The communication function reflects the fact that packaging is a medium. Packaging communicates through its graphics, that is to say, through its labeling, including the printed word, symbols, icons, images, colors, and fonts. It also communicates through its structure, i.e. size, shape, and composition, while engaging any of, to all of, the five senses. Especially as applied to retail goods, packaging, through its communication function, is a potent marketing tool that can impart shelf-appeal and give a brand a competitive advantage.

But the communication function of packaging also is vital in the conveyance of warnings and safety instructions (hereafter, warnings). A wide variety of packaged goods pose hazards that might not be known to a reasonably alert and prudent user, thereby triggering a duty to warn on the part of the product marketer. Even when a user has some familiarity with the nature of a hazard, a warning can serve as a valuable reminder.

The easier determination, in the failure-to-warn sense, is when there’s a duty to warn but no warning is provided. The more difficult determination is when a supposed warning is not adequate, in that, an inadequate warning is tantamount to no warning at all.

An adequate warning abides by a variety of factors related to what the warning says (content) and the framework within which it’s presented (format). Specific to packaging, and in addition to content and format, other issues factor into adequacy. One is conspicuity, how easily the warning can be perceived. A warning must be prominently displayed, such that it stands out from the surrounding visual elements.

When packaging fails the warnings component of the communication function, the results can be an unreasonably dangerous product, leading to injuries and fatalities.

Utility. Packaging facilitates the interaction between people and what’s packaged; as such, the utility function is also referred to as the convenience function.

A feature that’s typically associated with utility is that of easy opening. As innocuous as that might sound, it can have a safety consequence, if an instrument (a knife?) is used and the instrument cuts fingers. Then again, there are types of packaging, such as clamshells, that can bear sharp edges that can cut all on their own.

A different example demonstrates the utility function on two levels. A corrugated box with die-cut slots for inserting one’s hands facilitates manual handling; however, how safely the handling can be performed is contingent on the location of the slots and the construction of the box. By contrast, unitizing dozens of those boxes on a pallet facilitates mechanical handling; however, how safely the handling can be performed is contingent on how solidly the unit has been assembled, as to pallet pattern, strapping, and stretch-wrapping.

When packaging fails the utility function, the results are inconveniences as to time and effort, at minimum, and injuries and fatalities, at most.

In summary, packaging performs only a handful of functions; nonetheless, they can take on a wide variety of complexities that have a direct impact on safety. As established, failure in any function can result in injuries and fatalities. When that happens, litigation is mostly a foregone conclusion, taking such forms as product liability, personal injury, failure-to-warn, and insurance claims.

When packaging expert witness and attorney first talk

by Sterling Anthony, CPP, expert witness, packaging, warnings, patent infringement, cargo loading & securement, insurance claims

An attorney and packaging expert have their initial conversation. Common sense allows certain motives to be ascribed to the parties: the attorney wants to know whether the expert deserves further consideration; and, the expert wants to know whether to seek further consideration. Those motives are interdependent, but herein are discussed from the perspective of the expert.

After the attorney has identified himself/herself and before the conversation begins in earnest, the expert should ask how the attorney learned of him/her. The attorney doesn’t always volunteer the information, though not intentionally. If the expert advertises, it’s good business basics to know what’s working.

The expert should want only enough details to determine whether the case is within his/her bailiwick. Beyond that, the expert runs the risk of being conflicted out of the case, should the expert not be retained by the attorney but opposing counsel calls. Another risk is that the more details supplied, the more the unspoken expectation of a response from the expert. It is not the expert’s obligation, at this juncture, to opine on the merits of the case. There’s time for that after the expert has been retained.

The expert should be cordial and considerate. The expert can be both without being reluctant to steer the conversation, as needed; for example, as soon as the expert has sufficient details, the attorney should be informed, “Yes, Counselor, I’m qualified to serve as your expert;” or, “Thank you, Counselor, but I’m not the expert for you.” If it’s the former, the expert should provide a concise narrative on qualifications, highlighting those aspects relevant to the case. Then, the expert should offer to send pertinent information——curriculum vitae, fee schedule, references, and whatever else the attorney might reasonably request.

If all of the heretofore advice is followed, the result will be a relatively short and to-the-point conversation. That’s a good thing. The phone call is business, not social. Both parties are assumed to have various demands on their time; therefore, there’s a need for effectiveness and efficiency. No matter how short the call, the expert, unavoidably, beyond questions and answers, conveys much for the attorney’s consideration. There’s the expert’s command of language and ease-of-expression. Whether the delivery is halting, professorial, stilted, fluid, or otherwise, the attorney is justified in regarding it as indication of what it would be like to work with that expert in the important realm of communications. It’s equally justifiable to regard delivery as indication of how the expert would come across in a deposition and in court.

If, at the conclusion of the conversation, there’s something further to pursue, the expert’s motto should be, promptness. Whatever has been promised should be fulfilled with dispatch; otherwise, the expert gives the impression of being less than reliable.

It’s rare that an attorney will think, “You had me at, Hello.” That fact notwithstanding, for the expert, the initial conversation is a unique opportunity, in that, if not handled competently, no other opportunities will be forthcoming——at least, not from that attorney.