One of the most important functions of a construction expert witness is establishing what the industry standard of care required under the specific circumstances at issue. That determination isn’t simply a matter of citing published guidelines — it requires informed judgment about how experienced practitioners actually operate in the relevant context.
What Standard of Care Actually Means
Standard of care in construction disputes isn’t a single fixed standard — it’s what a reasonably competent practitioner in the same field, with similar experience, would have done under similar circumstances. That definition requires contextualization: the standard applicable to a large commercial general contractor is different from the one applicable to a small residential subcontractor.
A Garrett Johnson Construction Expert with hands-on project management experience can speak to what experienced practitioners actually do in the field, not just what they’re supposed to do according to published guidelines. That practitioner perspective is more credible to courts and juries than testimony based purely on documentary sources.
Industry Codes, Standards, and Publications
Published standards from organizations like ACI (American Concrete Institute), AISC (American Institute of Steel Construction), and ASHRAE provide objective benchmarks that construction expert witnesses reference in establishing standard of care. The Construction Specifications Institute MasterFormat and project manual standards are also frequently referenced in defect and workmanship disputes.
Geographic Variations in Standard of Care
Standard of care varies by geography in ways that matter for litigation. Construction practices, regulatory requirements, climate considerations, and local industry norms all influence what’s reasonable in a specific market. An expert who understands local conditions — rather than applying a national standard uniformly — is more defensible on cross-examination.
Documentation of Expert Opinion Basis
Expert reports that clearly document the basis for each opinion — specific documents reviewed, conversations had, site inspections conducted, standards consulted — are more persuasive and more defensible than those that present conclusions without tracing their derivation. The documentation also protects the expert from cross-examination that attempts to characterize the opinion as unsupported.
