Legal Issues in Occupational Ergonomics - Fundamentals and Assessment Tools for Occupational Ergonomics - page 39

stabilization, lateral body movement, or other active chassis, suspension, or steering devices. The human
input may be overridden, for a brief period of time, when electronic stabilization systems control quick
impulses to various brakes, effect throttle position or power dynamics, and have active steering to
restore an out-of-control vehicle to a straight ahead position. A yaw velocity and roll velocity sensor
may institute proactive inputs to an electronic control system that completely overrides human input
where the driver's reaction time is inadequate to meet the needs. There are numerous peer accepted tech-
nical terms that can be used. There are numerous technical devices that can assist in maintaining vehicle
stability or act as automatic driver support systems. They serve to recognize problems inherent in those
human characteristics important to safe vehicle handling. In short, describing the interactions between
driver, the vehicle, and the roadway can be very complex, confusing, and difficult. They may be the subject
of both the human factors specialist and the vehicle dynamics engineer acting in a cooperative fashion.
Complexity is often the result of the use of precise terminology that is appropriate where brevity of
communication between peers is desirable or for those in research where exact replication is important.
However, it may be just bureaucratic clutter or dress up that is unnecessary. The question is always what
purpose does the complexity serve and how can it be truthfully simplified for a lay audience such as a
jury? The university professor is often seen as a person who converts the complex into something that
can be understood and retained by a select group of motivated students. But, the background of those
students is homogenous and elevated compared to jurors.
Lawyers in their pre-trial preparation gather, analyze, and determine the implications of a considerable
body of evidence. As they study the evidence they attempt to narrow issues, condense the key facts, select
among the witnesses, and emphasize certain evidence. It is a process of gradual simplification, not
unknown among other professional disciplines.
A treating physician may be obligated to inform and to explain to the patient something about the
diagnosis of a disease, the treatment options, the prognosis, and the various risks. The physician must
simplify the complexities, tailor the discussion to the needs and inherent level of understanding of the
patients, and secure actual informed consent where necessary. A reasonably direct and honest approach
requires simplification and truth for effective communication to the recipient, if there is to be mutual
trust created or affirmed. The proponent of any discipline must engender personal trust if there is to
be reliance on the analysis and opinion in a complex subject area.
Jury instructions are of particular importance to an expert witness, since they are the operative guide-
lines for the trier-of-fact (usually a jury). These are the landmarks around which all of the testimony is
oriented (i.e., there must be relevancy as to the contested issues of fact in the case before the court). There
have been attempts to simplify the complex legal language of some jury instructions into “plain English”
instructions. The advocacy aspects of a trial, such as final argument, permits the lawyer to use plain
English to explain the meaning of the admitted evidence.
Thus, the simplification of complexities is a continual ongoing process for all those involved in the
litigation process. It may not appear to be simplification with numerous and lengthy depositions,
many motions and declarations, and endless discovery in the form of interrogatories and requests for
production or admission that may or may not be seen by the expert witness, consultant, coordinator,
or remote employee. But, after any search for possible evidence, the simplification process must take
place for all those involved. The court may impose strict limits as to time, both for preparation and
in-court testimony.
3.4 Court Appearances
3.4.1 Full and Timely Disclosure
A potential expert witness should complete his analysis as early as possible, subject to modification as
additional facts become known. The expert should ascertain, from the lawyer, all relevant deadlines
for his work. The Court may require an expert to fully disclose his opinions to opposing counsel at or