Summer 2000 issue of the Expert Witness newsletter (volume 5, issue 2)


  • Case Comment: Madge v. Meyer
    • by Scott Beesley
    • This article concerns a case in which there was no apparent loss of income following a farm owner’s injury. Mr. Beesley notes that it is critical to separate the farm income generated through the assistance of a friend or family member from the income earned by the injured farm owner. If the income generated by an unpaid (or underpaid) worker is attributed to the injured owner then the injured person’s loss of income could be greatly underestimated.
  • Combining Occupational Options
    • by Christopher Bruce
    • In this article, Christopher Bruce notes that it is often not clear at the time of trial what occupation the plaintiff would have entered had he or she not been injured, or what occupation he/she will now enter. In these cases, it is common for the vocational expert to offer a menu of possible occupations that are consistent with the plaintiff’s observed interests and aptitudes. In his article, Dr. Bruce looks at how one could combine these occupations (and the corresponding incomes) in order to determine an average, expected income for the plaintiff.