Structural Engineer's Use of Photos Helps Deliver $500K Verdict in House Deck Collapse Trial

Structural engineering testimony, while often the most important evidence in trials in which it’s used, can be difficult for jurors to follow, and ensuring that an expert witness keeps jurors engaged through critical findings and conclusions can be difficult. In Conover v. 3 Options Realty, however, Michael Goldberg’s direct exam of a structural engineer proved vital to winning a six-figure verdict for injuries a woman suffered in a house deck collapse.

Monica Conover broker her leg in two places when the house deck she was on collapsed during a 2014 party. Conover’s legal team claimed the home’s owner and company that managed the property were responsible for renting the home while the deck was in disrepair. 

At trial, Fried Rogers Goldberg’s Michael Goldberg, representing Conover, walked plaintiff’s structural engineering expert, Bryan Durig, through 40 minutes of testimony leading to his conclusion that the deck fell because of rotten wood poorly anchored to the home.

Goldberg took a “newspaper-style” lead-first approach to the questioning, asking Durig for his conclusion about the deck’s construction early in the testimony. That approach allowed jurors a base to follow Durig’s observations about the deck, while ensuring they did not tune out the most important part of the testimony.

After giving his conclusions, Goldberg had Durig step down from the stand and use a pointer to explain his findings on photographs taken of the home and broken pieces of the deck. Durig highlighted wood fragments he said showed obvious deterioration, as well as points on the home without “flashing,” which allowed the wood to rot and caused the deck to break away. “It’s pretty obvious that it’s not going to be able to hold the screws, hold the nails, hold them in place, because they’re just going to pull straight out,” Durig explained as he showed a broken piece of deck. “And this happens over time, when you get stuff wet, dry; wet, dry; wet, dry. This being up next to the house without any air gap in there. It’s going to allow this moisture to get there, and stay there, and deteriorate this.”

Durig’s cogent explanation as he walked jurors through photos of the collapsed deck ensured jurors remained engaged to the critical testimony and helped deliver a $500,000 verdict.