For this part, assume that you are a newly retained lawyer, straight out of law school, at your firm (who wants to advance). A senior partner has asked you to analyze the case from a legal perspective

I’m working on a engineering project and need an explanation and answer to help me learn.

For this problem, you will wear two different hats. For Part 1, you will be a lawyer and for Part 2, you will be an Engineering Forensic Expert Witness who has been retained by one of the parties in this case. Under the terms of your retention as an expert witness, you have signed a standard confidentiality agreement that prohibits you from discussing the matter with anyone other than your client. This precludes any discussion with anyone who is not on your team. Violation of the confidentiality agreement would subject you to liability for all damages that result to your client from said violation. At the behest of all parties, the Judge has also issued a Confidentiality Order. The order applies to all parties in this matter, including consultants and their employees. Failure to follow the order would result in being held in contempt of court with associated civil penalties. All parties are adversarial so it would be unethical to discuss your thoughts, findings, and opinions with any party to the case other than your own client. Scenario: A worker on a construction site is using a bull float (for concrete work). The bull float has a 24-foot aluminum handle. The worker lifts the handle into a vertical position. Unknown to the worker is that there is a 7200-volt power line 24 feet above the ground where the worker is using the bull float. The worker suffers a terrible burn injury when the handle contacts the 7200-volt distribution line. By applicable law, it has been established that defendants are “joint and severally liable” for failure to maintain safety on the jobsite. Defendants will be responsible for all damages if they are found to be negligent and if held to be reckless, can be made to pay punitive damages. It is the Plaintiff’s position that the defendants owed a duty to the Plaintiff, breached the duty and were thus negligent. Plaintiff believes that the injury was not just foreseeable but was also probable. The plaintiff may additionally ask the judge to certify the case for punitive damages. The plaintiff’s technical position is that the defendants each had a duty to assure that any bull float handle that could reach the overhead lines should be made of a non-conductive material such as fiberglass. A recent defense theory has been put forward by one defendant that says that the use of a fiberglass handle provides some protection but not complete protection from electrical injury. One expert has issued a report which asserts that since the work area was very wet, and the pole was soaked in water with a mixture of mud and concrete when the incident occurred, electricity could be conducted down a fiberglass pole to the plaintiff, and he would have suffered essentially the same injuries even if the pole was fiberglass. Both sides accept the following as fact. The fiberglass handle is 24 feet long, 2 inches in diameter and came in contact with a 7200 volt source. Pictures of fiberglass and aluminum poles are shown on the last page

Assignment: PART 1: For this part, assume that you are a newly retained lawyer, straight out of law school, at your firm (who wants to advance). A senior partner has asked you to analyze the case from a legal perspective. You are to provide all strengths and weaknesses, assess the best arguments (and defenses) for each side, determine if the case will succeed for negligence. Assess if there are viable arguments that defendants behavior was reckless. Assess the range of damages that you think the case might be worth. Leave no stone unturned. Don’t not just offer an opinion but support your opinions with the legal concepts that you have learned.

PART 2: You have been asked by your client, as an engineering expert, to determine the most probable amount of current that YOU BELIEVE Plaintiff would have been exposed to if the pole was aluminum and also, if it was fiberglass (and soaking wet). You are to assume that the typical resistance of a human being is 1000 ohms. Most important is for you to calculate the resistance of the pole (a. aluminum and b. soaking wet fiberglass pole) which is electrically in series with the Plaintiff. Resistance is based on the formula: Resistance = (ρ x Length)/Area where ρ (rho) is the resistivity. You will need to apply Ohm’s law to determine current. Ohm’s law is stated as: V=I x R where V is voltage, I is current, and R is resistance). You need to opine if that current level is dangerous and can cause terrible burns and if the same injury would occur from an aluminum pole and a fiberglass pole. You will need to do appropriate research and apply your skills as an engineer. (You do not need to be an electrical engineer to solve this problem. You can direct questions to me if you are uncertain about any aspect.) In your answer, draw appropriate diagrams, state all assumptions and your sources for believing that the assumptions are to the legal standard, being “more likely than not” correct. Show all work and calculations. State the best position to be taken by the plaintiff with these results and the best position to be taken by the defendant with these results. Provide your answer to this part in the form of a sworn affidavit showing your work and stating your conclusions to the proper legal standard.