Description

In a wrongful death or personal injury case, both sides can offer economic experts to substantiate the financial consequences of an injury. However, defendants frequently still choose not to offer economic experts at trial. Instead, they rely on cross-examination of the plaintiff's economist to glean concessions with which to argue that no or little confidence can or should be placed in the plaintiff's expert's opinion. Defense counsel need a quiver of strategies and techniques to lift the curtain on what they would like to argue is a flimsy damages case.

Economic expert testimony lends itself to a wide range of potential lines of cross-examination: expert credentials and "purchased testimony," speculative and unrealistic assumptions, overreliance on "averages" while ignoring the facts of the case or the plaintiff's actual habits and prospects, fantastical financial predictions, making the straightforward confusing, etc. The overriding goal of cross-examination is to leave the jury with the unshakable conviction that the plaintiff's economic expert has manipulated financial reality to inflate damages.

This can be a daunting task when the plaintiff's expert has done a thorough job and is well prepared. Further, counsel must find a way to keep the jury and court engaged because damages experts often testify late in the case after the record is as complete as possible.

Listen as this renowned panel of trial attorneys offers valuable and practical insights for strategic and surgical cross-examination of the plaintiff's damages expert.