VISUALIZING THE UNSEEN: MODERN PREMISES LIABILITY ANALYSIS
Christopher DeSantis, RA, AIA, CXLT and Benjamin T. Irwin, PE, DFE, CXLT
Understanding Premises Liability Through Forensic Disciplines
At its core, forensic architecture and forensic engineering can simply be thought of as the application of facts and science in answering technical questions posed by a lay audience. Similarly, premises liability evaluation can simply be thought of as a technical evaluation of the interactions between human beings and the constructed environment around them, in response to a specific incident where a specific constructed condition is alleged to have caused injury to a specific person. Seems simple, right?
- Step 1: Analyze the facts.
- Step 2: Apply the science(s) to the facts.
Traditionally, premises liability analysis has focused largely on compliance of the constructed conditions with codes and industry norms. Again, simple right?
- Step 1: Determine the applicable codes and industry norms.
- Step 2: Evaluate compliance of the constructed conditions.
While this traditional approach forms the foundation of premises liability evaluations, it can become complicated when evidence is incomplete or conditions have changed.
When Facts are Unclear: The Need for a Modern, Multi-Disciplinary Approach
But what happens when the facts are unclear, or even partially contradictory? What if the facts are unknown? Similarly, how do you analyze compliance, if you can’t determine the age of the constructed conditions? These answers require a more modern, multi-faceted, and multi-disciplinary approach.
Modern Tools for Reconstructing Incidents
We can start with a simple idea: Nearly everything leaves evidence somewhere, and there are many more opportunities to technically investigate a given fact pattern now than there have ever been before.
This is modern premises liability analysis, where the key is to reconstruct a given incident to the greatest extent possible, either physically in reality, in a virtual manner, or in some combination of the two. When an incident can be better visualized, even if the conditions have since changed, it can become much simpler to see the facts, codes, standards, and science more clearly.
Case Study: Forensic Analysis of Roadway Construction Site Incident
Consider being faced with a fact pattern involving a fall event on a roadway construction site, where the construction site is long gone.
- No witnesses to the incident
- Limited photos from the time of the incident
- Available testimony created a “he-said, she-said” situation that didn’t make sense in the context of the other available information.
In this forensic engineering investigations, a new first step to verify the facts before analyzing them is needed in this case.
As a part of this fact pattern, construction staging plans were provided piecemeal and in an incomplete manner, along with out-of-sequence and partially missing/redundant daily field logs. Reassembling these pieces revealed verifiable extents of the construction zone on the date of the incident, including what construction equipment was on site at the time of the incident. It also revealed the adjacent streets on which the same contractor had performed similar work.
While the dated street level imagery did not indicate the exact conditions present within the construction zone at the time of the incident, it provided valuable data for visual evidence reconstruction, showing the construction zone protection methods utilized by the contractor elsewhere on the same project on the adjacent streets.
The dated street level imagery near the construction zone showed limited construction equipment, surrounded by limited construction zone protection, which more closely aligned with the contradictory testimony, but was from a different point in time. Combining all of this evidence through Haag’s multi-disciplinary forensic approach, the conditions present at the time of the incident were reconstructed, such that these unseen conditions could be visualized clearly utilizing verifiable facts.
Not every case requires this level of complexity. In many premise liability investigations, a simple review and enhancement of the video surveillance footage from an incident will provide the fact verification needed. There are also now some interior street level images being recorded inside of buildings. Both modern technologies can also be used as part of a multi-disciplinary premises liability evaluation approach, revealing details that could not be easily seen before.
Case Study: Forensic Analysis of Surveillance Footage / Location Confusion Issue
Consider another example from a forensic premises liability investigation, where the video surveillance footage brought confusion, rather than clarity. This basic fact pattern suggested that the wrong incident location was investigated by a property owner after an incident had occurred at a known location somewhere else. The video surveillance footage captured the incident in a verifiable location, as well as the investigation conducted at that same location, but the car shown in the photos from the investigation didn’t match the car allegedly present at the time of the incident. So, what created this discrepancy?
The key to understanding what happened was to visualize the conditions present at the different points in time, as viewed from the perspectives of the different parties at those different times. Some constructed environments are dynamic in nature, with conditions changing frequently. To clarify the conflicting evidence, we combined review and enhancement of:
- All video surveillance footage (not just the two segments referenced earlier)
- Designed site features
- In-field measurements
- Dynamic environment over time, and
- Conditions present at the time of the incident
Together, these elements allowed us to virtually reconstruct the scene and make the unseen clear to visualize.
Providing Clarity Through Premise Liability Investigations
In each of these premise liability investigations, early preservation of evidence was key. Early engagement of forensic consulting experts can also help to bring clarity to additional unseen, but verifiable, facts early in the claims and/or litigation processes, improving the potential for early, informed decision-making. The evidence is often out there somewhere, and our task, together, is to locate, verify, and analyze it in a multi-faceted manner, utilizing our arsenal of modern tools.
What can we bring into clearer focus for you?
At Haag, our forensic engineers, architects, and technical experts combine science, evidence, and visualization to clarify complex premises liability claims and legal cases. Whether verifying incident locations, interpreting surveillance footage, or reconstructing changing site conditions, we help clients see the facts clearly. Contact Haag, a Salas O’Brien Company, to connect with a premises liability expert and discuss how our team can support your next investigation or claim.
Authors
With a Master of Architecture degree from Virginia Tech and a Bachelor of Arts degree from University of Kentucky, and over six years of diverse professional experience within architectural and engineering firms, and specific concentrations in forensic investigations, Mr. DeSantis provides a wide array of forensic and consulting architectural services. Building on his communication skills as a Graduate Teaching Assistant for Steel, Timber, and Reinforced Concrete Structures courses, and his own personal experience working in the masonry construction trade, he breaks down complex architectural, engineering, and construction issues into simple, easy to understand concepts. Learn more.
With dual degrees in architecture and civil engineering from Lehigh University, and over 26 years of diverse professional experience, Mr. Irwin provides a wide array of engineering, design, construction, and safety consulting and expert witness litigation support services. He is a registered Professional Engineer in 24 USA jurisdictions (P.E.), and one Canadian jurisdiction (P.Eng.) and is recognized as a Model Law Engineer (MLE) by the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES). He is a Board-certified Senior Member of the National Academy of Forensic Engineers (NAFE), holding the designation of Diplomate Forensic Engineer (DFE). He has been qualified for, and testified within, state and Federal courts, with retentions from both plaintiffs and defendants, often offering visualization demonstratives in support of his testimony. Learn more.
Any opinions expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of Haag or Salas O’Brien.
