Examination 4 - cross and direct of Safety Engineer and expert witness in tools equipment product liability case

Download PDF Version


(Whereupon the following

proceedings were had in court in the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: You may proceed.

BY MR. BELL:

Q. Mr. Gililland, I have, marked Defendant's Exhibit 151, could you identify what that is for the ladies and gentlemen of the jury.

A. That's a copy of my current resume.

Q. Could you tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury your educational background?

A. I have a bachelor of science in electrical engineering, I received that in 1972 from Louisiana Tech University. Since then I have not taken any college courses although I have taken many seminars in the field

of safety engineering.

Q. Are you a licensed engineer?

A. Yes, I am, in Missouri and Massachusetts.

Q. In what specialities?

A. In Massachusetts I'm licensed as a safety engineer and in Missouri I'm licensed as an electrical engineer.

Q. Are you a member of any industry associations?

A. Many professional

associations, I'm not a member of any industry associations. But the professional associations are the National Society of Professional Engineers, the Missouri Society of Professional Engineers, the American Society of Safety Engineers, the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, National Fire Protection Association, National Safety Council. I'm sure I left somebody out.

d. Do you sit on any industr'y

safety committees?

A. Yes. I do, I actually chair one, that's the American National Standards. Institute 01 committee that is responsible for industrial Woodworking machinery. I've also sat on many committees in the past for other products and chaired other committees in the past.

Q. Have you ever done any work. for the CPSC?

A. Yes, I was. on two committees for the CPSC back in the last ‘70s, one was the engineering committee and the other was a human factors committee, those had to do with chain saw safety standards that they were developing.

Q. Now for the ladies and gentlemen of the jury, what is the CPSC?

A. That's the U.S. Consumer Products Safety Commission, they're responsible for the safety of consumer

products in the United States.

Q. And the American National Standards Institute, what is that?

A. That - we commonly call that ANSI by its initials, that is the national clearinghouse for standards in the United States. It's an organization that promulgates standards; that is, encourages their development and publication-. It publishes standards, it coordinates the work of standards committees and is the organization that's used by Congress and for the world outside the United States as a clearinghouse or a central location for standards.

Q. Have you published in the field of safety regarding power cutting tools?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. Can you just briefly give the ladies and gentlemen some background on the various publications you've been involved with?

A. I would not call them peer-reviewed. For about 4 or 5 years I published for a magazine called Wood Magazine, it was a subsidiary of Better Homes and Gardens. Wood Magazine is a woodworkers how-to magazine and for 4 or 5 years I was known as Mr. Safety to the readers of that book and I published regularly safety articles on woodworking safety.

Q. Would you share with the ladies and gentlemen your work experience. Can you tell us the” various companies, that you've worked for and the type of work that you've done?

A. My first job after I graduated from college back in ‘73 was with a company named

Beaird-Poulan/Weedeater; that's Poulan chain saws, Sears Craftsman chain saws, Weedeater brand trimmers and brushcutters as well as the Sears Craftsman weedwacker and I think they

had a brushwacker at one time, trimmers. I also did. some work with log splitters.

While I was there at

Poulan I was the safety engineer, I was the director - or, excuse me, the supervisor of engineering laboratories and at the time I left in 1980 I was the engineering manager of safety and standards.

I worked independently

for the next 5 years doing consulting work for various chain saw manufacturers. In 1985 I went, to work at Aircap Industries, that's down in Tupelo, Mississippi, they are a part of MTD which is a Cleveland based organization that owns and operates a number of manufacturers of lawn and garden equipment. We manufactured in Mississippi a complete line of lawn mowers, tillers, edgers, snow throwers, every power equipment you would use in the lawn including

brushcutters and hand-held string trimmers.

In 1988 I left there

and cameto St. Louis where I live now to be the director of product safety for a division of Emerson Electric Company, that division designed and manufactured all of the stationary woodworking tools for Sears and that was the table saws, the radial saws, the band saws; the big power tools that you would find at Sears. I left there in 1994 to form my own consulting company and that's what I'm doing today.

Q. And what - how do you - describe what you're doing today, the work that you've done in the DeWeese case.

A. In this particular case I would describe it as forensic engineering. That is, studying the. accident, studying the facts and the science of. the accident and trying to

understand how the accident happened.

Q. Have you ever designed power cutting tools or guards for power cutting tools?

A. Many, many, yes.

Q. So the ladies and gentlemen of the jury have some understanding of your experience in that area, could you discuss with us some of the power tools that you've participated in designing or guarding in your experience?

A. I'll try. When I was at Pou1an/Weedeater I designed and did safety systems. design for chain saws both gasoline and electric powered; Weedeaters, that is the flexible string trimmers both gasoline and electric powered; brushcutters, gasoline-powered only; some log splitter work.

When I was at Aircap I

did lawn mowers and that's walk-behind and riding lawn mowers, walk-behind

both electric and gasoline; tillers, gasoline and electric powered; snow throwers, gasoline and electric powered; brushcutters, trimmers, edgers, blowers. Seems like we did something else at Air cap But there was an awful lot going on there.

At Emerson Electric I did design work either on the machines or on the safety systems and safety devices for table saws, radial saws, band saws, scroll saws, miter saws, shapers, sanders, shop vacuums, humidifiers, ceiling fans, whole house fans, screwdrivers, pliers, punch tools, vacuum-shredder-baggers, I know I - oh, lathes, drill presses; the complete line of woodworking tools and I know I left something out.

Q. The line of the woodworking tools that you worked on at Emerson, they were sold through Sears under what name?

A. Craftsman.

Q. Have you had any experience in actually drafting and preparing warning instructions, safety information for users of the various power tools] that you've been involved in?

A. I have either written or been on the team that wrote and developed every manual for every power tool that I've ever worked on.

Q. What's the purpose of the warning and safety instructions with power tools?

A. There's a number of purposes for the owners manual, one, of course, is to acquaint the user with the product itself. You want them to understand- its controls, you want them to understand how it's used, you want them to understand its safety, you want them to understand the hazards that are associated with it and how to avoid those hazards and finally, of course, you want them to be able

to maintain the product so all of that is in the owners manual.

Q. Have you had experience in actually using power cutting tools, testing power cutting tools?

A. Everything that I've ever designed I've used.

Q. How about brushcutters?

A. Many, many times. I was - at Poulan when I was supervisor of the laboratories, we were the first company in the. U.S. to start testing and developing brushcutters so we did some of the initial work in this country that had to do with bladed devices.

Q. What was the brand name?

A. Weedeater and bushwacker. Bushwacker I think was the Sears brand.

Q. Did those brushcutters come with guarding around the right side of the brushcutter?

MR. ROSIN: Objection,

re1evance.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BELL: May I be heard?

MR. ROSIN: No, I'll withdraw the objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Objection's withdrawn.

MR. ROSIN: Go ahead andanswer.

THE WITNESS: The

guarding that was ultimately developed for those is similar to what's on the market today; that is, it's a shield at the rear of the blade between the blade and the operator but nothing around the sides. BY MR. BELL:

Q. Now your work in forensic engineering, can you basically describe the type of work you've been doing in that field since you started your own consulting practice.

A. Forensics to me is analyzing

accidents, investigating accidents and being able to explain those accidents; the science of those accidents, what can work and what won't work, what's real and what's not real, and explaining that typically in a courtroom forum, in a litigation forum.

0. What are the types of things that you would do in your work as a forensic engineer?

A. Well, you have to understand the products first of all so any time there's a - and, by the way, my forensic practice is all product related, there are other areas, that are not specific products but mine is all - has to do with some product that's been involved in an accident.

So you have to

understand the product, you have to understand its uses, its misuses, its hazards, how people are. using the machine or the device. And then you

have to understand the science that goes into that, whether it's physics or whether it's electrical engineering, but the different sciences that go into what makes things do the. way they - do what they do the way they do it, what will they do, what won't they do; understanding those, understanding then the facts of the accident as they're presented allows you then to put together the pieces that work and come up with an understandable explanation, an analysis of accidents.

Q. Now you charge for your time?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. And what is your rate?

A. 175 an hour.

Q. And I retained you in this case to review the evidence in the DeWeese accident?

A. That's correct.

Q. And can you tell the ladies

and gentlemen of the jury some of the things that you've done in working on this case?

A. Well, aside from reading and studying 15 or 16 or 18 depositions, I have inspected the actual trimmer, I've been to the site of the accident and inspected the scene where it occurred, took measurements, photographs while I was there, took some notes.

I've used a similar

brushcutter to actually do some cutting in the field to see how it works. I've also analyzed other” products that have other

characteristics but that can do some of the same tasks. A lot of literature research understanding what. the history of these products is, the history of guarding of these products, and then generally just a lot of analysis of the science of the accident itself.

Q. Starting with the inspection of the accident scene, can you tell us. what you did when you went, to the accident site?

A. Yes. We took a 1ot of photographs of the site itself and of the product that was involved in the accident, the. brushcutter itself. I took some measurements, took some -

Q. We've blown up some of these photographs -

A. Yes.

Q. - of the accident site. Showing you Defendant's Exhibit 14, what does that show us?

A. That's the work bench -

MR. ROSIN: Can we get' a foundation of the date?

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. BELL:

Q. What was the date of your inspection?

A. December 9th, 1999.

Q. And does Defendant's Exhibit

14 accurately depict what you saw when you were at the scene of this accident?

A. Yes, it does.

Q. What else did you do when you were there besides the photographs?

A. We took some measurements of the area, the work area where the accident took place, we photographed - also had photographs outside, we photographed the actual machine itself and some of the attachments that were available or I guess it was an extra blade that was available for the brushcutter.

Q. What measurements did you take in the area of the accident site?

A. Two measurements that were most interesting to me was the distance between the bench and there is a shelf, a storage shelf, to the right in the photograph that you're

looking at.

Q. In this area here?

A. Yes. If you imagine that you're the person taking the photograph, the shelf would be touching your right shoulder as you're taking that photograph and it runs parallel to the bench. The shelf - the distance between the shelving and the bench is 89 inches, and then the length of the bench I think is 150 something inches, roughly 13 feet.

Q. Let me get the brushcutter. Mr. Gililland, I'm showing you what has been marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 68. Approximately what is the length of the brushcutter from the floor to the tip of the blade?

A. I don't have to approximate, I can measure it for you.

MR. BELL: All right.

Your Honor, may he be able to step down?

THE COURT: Witness may

step down.

THE WITNESS: 71 and a

half - 72 and three-quarters - I'm sorry, 71 and three-quarters inches. That's a quarter inch short of 6 feet.

MR. BELL: All right. Thank you, Mr. Gililland.

BY MR. BELL:

Q. What was significant about the accident site given the nature and use of the brushcutter?

A. It's a very restricted area, a small space in which to be trying to start a product like this; you. don't have room in any direction if anything goes wrong. You're just too confined, you're too crowded.

Q. You said that you also did an inspection of the product?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. A product similar to Plaintiff's Exhibit 68?-

A. Yes.

Q. And tell us what you did.

A. Photographed it, photographed all the labels, took notes of what the labels said, took note of its condition at the time of the inspection which was December of Recorded all of that and went home.

Q. Did you examine the manual that came with the product?

A. I don't know if I did it that day, I might have, but I. have since done that and I do have a copy, of the manual.

Q. All right. I've enlarged several pages of the manual. I'm showing you Defendant's Exhibit 24 which is page 4 of the manual. Can you tell us the significance of that safety instruction?

A. Yes, this is very early in the manual, I think you said it's page 4, and what it's doing is it's saying - when you first put the brushcutter together, there's certain

things you should do to prepare for using it and that's what this is saying.

When you're about ready

to use the brushcutter, you need to be sure you're in an open area, you need to be sure that there aren't people in the immediate area so that the people who are around are protected by being far enough away that they won't get hit by something or they won't get hit by a blade or a thrown object. And so you're supposed to do that and the manual tells you here's how you do it, here's what you should be doing.

Q. Showing you Plaintiff's Exhibit - I mean Defendant's Exhibit. 28 which is pages 12 and 13 of the operators manual. Can you tell us the significance of that instruction?

A. Yes. This is in a section that's entitled metal blade usage. It's the section that tells the

operator how to use the machine when it has this metal blade on it and this is the first page - actually, it's the right-hand column of the first page of the metal blade section, and it's - you can. see those are the words that are - that I'm looking at in the actual manual.

Operator got to keep

everything clear, don't have anything near you. Here's all about what we call blade bounce or kickback, here's what causes it, here's how you control it. Be careful. If you're not careful, you can get a serious injury from blade bounce and so it goes to great length to tell you what it is and how to avoid it.

Q. Did the warnings contained in the operators manual and on the product itself describe potential safety hazards to the user? A. Yes, it does.

MR. ROSIN: Objection,

compound.

THE COURT: Overruled.

BY MR. BELL:

Q. Did you observe warnings on the blade itself?

A. Yes. The blade itself actually has additional warnings in addition to what's on the product itself. The product has two warning labels but then the blade has another set of warnings too itself.

Q. And did additional warnings come on the packaging of the blade?

A. Yes, on the outside of the box.

Q. Let me show you what I've marked as Defendant's Exhibit 10. I don't know if you can see that, Mr. Gililland?

A. I have the photograph here, I've got it.

Q. What information does that provide the user?

A. What you see here are some

warnings and you might notice they're in three different languages, the top section being in English, that's the one I can read. And it says things like avoid cutting close to fences, building, other obstruction, do not use within 50 feet of other people, follow the safety precautions in the owners manual. Those are some of the kinds of things, don't use a damaged blade, such as that.

Q. Are these appropriate warnings for this type of product?

A. They certainly are, yes.

Q. Showing you page 12 of the operators manual which I've marked as Defendant's Exhibit 27. Can you see that, Mr. Gililland? It's page 12.

MR. ROSIN: The

description does not accurately state what the exhibit is.

THE COURT: Show the exhibit to counsel, please.

MR. ROSIN: I don't

mind if he says it's a portion of page 12 but it's not -

THE COURT: Hold it. Hold it. Show the exhibit to counsel, please. If there's an objection, you can raise the objection.

MR. ROSIN: It's just a description. I object to the description.

THE COURT: Let's have a side bar. Take down the exhibit, please.

(Whereupon the following proceedings were had outside the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: What is the objection to the exhibit?

MR. ROSIN: Well, it's

how he's describing it. Page 12 is not what's being shown and what counsel is saying and it's just to make sure the record is accurate. He's showing an abstract which is

essentially this portion which is approximately the middle third of the right column of page 12. I don't mind and I don't object to him using it as long as he accurately describes it so the record is clear what the witness is referring to.

MR. BELL: I think,

your Honor, I stated it's page 12, it's a portion of page 12.

THE COURT: Well, no, you said it was page 12.

MR. BELL: Well, the manual is in evidence.

THE COURT: Well, hold

it. Hold it. If counsel is going to be testifying before the jury, then counsel should accurately identify what is being shown to the witness and it's not page 12, it's a portion of page 12. If - more properly, counsel should be asking the witness what this particular exhibit is so counsel can describe what the. exhibit

is that's being shown to the jury and if the witness would indicate what it was, if he has the manual in front of him, he can identify what portion of the manual the exhibit is, but the objection is. sustained because it isn't -

MR. ROSIN: And I will ask -

THE COURT: It is not page 12 -

MR. ROSIN: Right, and I will ask -

THE COURT: - in total.

MR. ROSIN: - that Mr. Bell use the procedure that I did which is to ask the witness to identify, what the exhibit is.

THE COURT: That should be what's done. The witness is testifying not counsel.

(Whereupon the following proceedings were had in court in the

presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: The objection is sustained. BY MR. BELL:

Q. Mr. Gililland, I'm showing you what is marked as Defendant's Exhibit 27, can you tell us what this is?

A. It's a portion of page 12 of the owners manual depicting a drawing of the metal blade and its proper usage.

MR. BELL: I would offer this in evidence, your Honor.

MR. ROSIN: I'm sorry?

MR. BELL: I offered it into evidence.

THE COURT: Well, the owners manual is already in evidence.

MR. BELL: I'm going to publish it for the jury.

THE COURT: Go ahead.

MR. ROSIN-: For demonstrative purposes, is that what

it is?.

THE COURT: Yes.

BY MR. BELL:

Q. What is the significance of the instructions contained on this portion of page 12, Mr. Gililland?

A. This particular diagram is showing specifically where you're supposed to cut with the blade, how you should use the blade, what portion you should and shouldn't use, and then there's a note right below the picture that says the types of materials you should and should not cut with the blade.

Q. Did you think that's an appropriate instruction for this product?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. Showing you Exhibit 26, can you identify what that is?

A. That's a portion of page. 5 of the owners manual.

MR. BELL: I'd like to

publish this to the ladies and gentlemen, your Honor.

THE COURT: Uh-hum.

BY MR. BELL:

Q. What is the significance of that instruction, Mr. Gililland?

A. There's an instruction on this page that I think is very significant to this accident and that's the one that you have highlighted in red. It says always be sure never to allow other persons to come within the work area while cutting. In other, words, when this thing is running, don't let anybody be around you.

Q. Is that an appropriate instruction for this product?

A. It's not only an appropriate instruction, had it been followed, this accident wouldn't have happened.

MR. ROSIN: Objection, nonresponsive.

THE COURT:

Responsiveness is only the objection of the questioner. The objection will be overruled.

BY MR. BELL:

Q. Does your review of the operators and users manual indicate the intended and foreseeable uses of this product?

A. Yes, it does.

Q. Are those instructions appropriate for the intended and foreseeable uses of the product?

A. Yes, that's - one of the techniques we use in writing owners manuals to help people understand the hazards is we, as the designers of the product and the writer of the manual, also have to anticipate within -reason how machines are going to be used, how they should be used, and we instruct in those uses and so that's what's in the manual.

0. Does it deal with the potential misuses of the product?

A. Yes, it does.

Q. Do you think that it's - do you have an opinion as to whether it discusses the potential misuses in an adequate fashion?

A. Yes. Misuses are - well, in this case here there's a simple misuse is doing something other than what you're being told to do. If you're told don't have anybody in the area while you're using the machine and there are people in the area, that we would consider a misuse of the product. If you're cutting a large., stable object where it says only cut small brushes and limbs, that would be a misuse, of the product.

And what we try to do is we give people positive instructions that say do this. It's not really possible to list every conceivable thing that you could do wrong so we try very hard in manuals'

to say these are the things you must do that are right and if, you do these things, you will avoid injury.

Q. Mr. Gililland, have you attempted to understand how this accident occurred?

A. Yes, L have.

Q. And can you tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what you've done in terms of trying to understand factually how this accident occurred.

A. Well, the first information that I get comes from the witnesses themselves; what they saw, what they believed they saw, what they heard, what was going on at the time, and there is obviously some confusion in that. If you have four people watch an automobile accident, you'll get four different variations of it but if you sort through all of that, you will find' the things that make sense, the things that work in terms of the physics of what actually happened in

terms of the dynamics of the science of what actually happened.

So you sort through the

witness statements, you analyze the physics and the science of what happened and this appears to be either a blade bounce or a runaway blade, one of the two, and both have basically the same science associated with them and that's consistent. within what some of the witnesses are saying.

So that's how you go

about it is you look at the product, you look at how it works, you look at the science of what works and what doesn't work, you listen to what the witnesses are saying and you piece all of that together then in a way that makes sense for the whole.

Q. And what is your

understanding based upon your review of the deposition testimony, your review of the evidence in this case,

your' site inspection; what is your understanding of how this accident occurred?

A. My analysis -

MR. ROSIN: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Basis?

MR. ROSIN: Either a

limiting instruction if it's not in evidence, request that if it's going to refer to matters that have not been presented in court.

THE COURT: Ladies and

gentlemen, a retained opinion witness is allowed to raise opinions on matters that have been admitted in evidence and on matters that have not been admitted in evidence really because the witness may rely on something that has not been admitted or will not be admitted in evidence only goes to the witness's opinion.

What the witness may have relied on that is not in

evidence is not substantive evidence for you to consider with regard to the truth of the matters being asserted, it's only what the witness has relied upon in rendering his opinion.

You may proceed.

THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, I forgot the question.

MR. BELL: Could you read the question back?

THE COURT: Could you read the last question, please.

THE COURT REPORTER: “Question: And what is your understanding based, upon your review of the deposition testimony,- your review of the evidence in this case, your site inspection; what is your understanding of.how this accident occurred?”

THE WITNESS: David

Trudeau had just completed assembling the brushcutter in the work' area and

that's the work area you see in the photograph over there. He then wanted to start the machine and test it. In the same work area near him were three other people, Patrick. Grant, Eugene Ferro and Gregg DeWeese; they were all off to his right as he stood facing the bench.

He started the machine

- I believe he started the machine while it was still on the bench and he picked it up while it was running and. at some point in time he proceeded to try to cut into the bench and when he did that, the machine - the blade dug into the wood and took off on its own. While he's still holding the handles, the blade then swings to the right and although Gregg DeWeese was on his way out of the work area at that time, he didn't get far enough out of the work area and he was cut on his arm, on his right arm.

BY MR. BELL:

Q. What is your understanding of Mr. Douglas Morita's opinions in this case with respect to the feasibility of an alternative design?

MR. ROSIN: Objection, form of the question.

THE COURT: Sustained. BY MR. BELL:

Q. Have you reviewed Mr. Morita's deposition testimony? A. Yes.

MR. ROSIN: Objection, your Honor. May I be heard?

THE COURT: Have a side bar.

(Whereupon the following proceedings were had outside the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: Yes, sir. MR. ROSIN: It is not

the prerogative of one witness to. comment on the credibility or weight to be assigned to another witness's

testimony. He can testify - Mr. Gililland is certainly at liberty to testify to feasibility and so forth, but. it is, in my submission to the Court, that it's improper to have one witness commenting, and critiquing another witness's testimony. That's a jury function to establish weight and credibility. The witness should speak to the substantive matters not to someone else's opinions.

MR. BELL: Are you finished, Mr. Rosin?

MR. ROSIN: It would be

also helpful, your Honor, if a higher level of decorum could- be maintained so that Mr. Bell practices in a truly professional manner which his reputation suggests that he always does.

MR. BELL: I want to know when I can comment.

MR. ROSIN: Well, sarcastic statements that are

occurring, the comments about my objections.

MR. BELL: May I speak?' Are you- done?

MR. ROSIN: I'm finished, your Honor. •

MR. BELL: Would you read my question back?

THE COURT REPORTER: The last question was have you reviewed Mr. Morita's deposition testimony. The one before that was what is your understanding of Mr. Douglas Morita's opinions in this case with respect to the feasibility of an alternative design.

MR. BELL: I think

that's an appropriate question, your Honor. I'm asking the witness. -

THE COURT: Well, which question?

MR. BELL: Either one of them. Either one of them.

' THE COURT: We 11, I

think one is appropriate and one is not. It's- appropriate to ask. him if he's reviewed Mr. Morita's deposition testimony, it's something that the witness may have reviewed in “rendering his opinions. I agree with Mr. Rosin to ask the witness to comment with regard to Mr. Morita's opinions is improper, the jury will ascertain what weight they wish to give to the opinions of anybody who testifies in this particular cause. The witness can testify with regard to his opinions as to the feasibility of products and the jury can determine whether they wish to believe Mr. Gililland, Mr. Morita, both of them or neither of them or portions of parts of their testimony.

Jury will assess the

credibility, it's not for this witness- to render opinions with regard to Mr. Morita's credibility.

MR. BELL: I didn't ask

him about credibility, I just asked his understanding.

THE COURT: Well,

that's where it goes. You can ask the witness questions with regard to feasibility. With regard to the objection that had been had,- the objection - with regard to the question as to his reviewing Mr. Mor opinions, he has with regard to Mr. Morita's testimony as to feasibility, that objection was sustained.

With regard to asking, him whether he read Mr. Morita's deposition, that objection would be overruled because same thing with whether he read Mr. Morita's deposition, the deposition of any of the witnesses; I mean those are all things that he may have reviewed in rendering his opinions.

With regard to

counsel's comments that Mr. Bell is not acting in a professional manner,

I differ, I think Mr. Bell's conduct throughout the. trial has been in a professional manner.

MR. ROSIN: I was not

objecting, to the last question but it was evident that he was going back. into what the. Court had just sustained on the objection.

THE COURT: Again, as I indicated, the witness can testify what opinions he has with regard to feasibility but with regard to his opining specifically with regard to Mr. Morita's testimony as to his opinions, the objection will be sustained.

Also, if you want

something read back, make your request. to me and not to the court reporter.

MR. BELL: It was- outside the presence of the jury.

THE COURT: Doesn't matter.

(Whereupon the following

proceedings were had in court in the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: The last

objection was overruled. BY MR. BELL:

Q. I believe I asked you if you had read Mr. Morita's testimony. A. Yes, I have.

THE COURT: When you

say testimony, you're referring to his discovery?

MR. BELL: Deposition testimony.

THE WITNESS: Yes. BY MR. BELL:

Q. He has proposed a guarding of the right side, of a brushcutter blade; is that your understanding?

A. He has adopted a guard that has been proposed by others, yes.

Client Reviews
Jonathan Rosenfeld was professionally objective, timely, and knowledgeable. Also, his advice was extremely effective regarding my case. In addition, Jonathan was understanding and patient pertaining to any of my questions or concerns. I was very happy with the end result and I highly recommend Jonathan Rosenfeld.
★★★★★
Extremely impressed with this law firm. They took control of a bad motorcycle crash that left my uncle seriously injured. Without any guarantee of a financial recovery, they went out and hired accident investigators and engineers to help prove how the accident happened. I am grateful that they worked on a contingency fee basis as there was no way we could have paid for these services on our own. Ethan Armstrong, Google User
★★★★★
This lawyer really helped me get compensation for my motorcycle accident case. I know there is no way that I could have gotten anywhere near the amount that Mr. Rosenfeld was able to get to settle my case. Thank you. Daniel Kaim, Avvo User
★★★★★
Jonathan helped my family heal and get compensation after our child was suffered a life threatening injury at daycare. He was sympathetic and in constant contact with us letting us know all he knew every step of the way. We were so blessed to find Jonathan! Giulia, Avvo User
★★★★★
Jonathan did a great job helping my family navigate through a lengthy lawsuit involving my grandmother's death in a nursing home. Through every step of the case, Jonathan kept my family informed of the progression of the case. Although our case eventually settled at a mediation, I really was impressed at how well prepared Jonathan was to take the case to trial. Lisa, Avvo User
★★★★★
Contact Us for a Free Consultation (888) 424-5757
Chicago Office Map