Attorneys succeeded in obtaining a judgment in favor of their client, a nationally recognized expert in the design of running tracks

Attorneys succeeded in obtaining a judgment in favor of their client, a nationally recognized expert in the design of running tracks.  In the litigation, a school district brought suit against numerous contractors, designers, etc. for various defects in the high school.  The co-defendants settled at mediation leaving in the case the general contractor for his retainage, and our client, who designed the running track.  The school district alleged, through its expert, that the running track was not properly certified, not properly built, and not certifiable.  Therefore, the school district had a new track installed at considerable expense.  This track was a "double bend" or "broken-back" configuration.  The case involved some courtroom drama because the school district took the risk of re-calling their expert engineer on rebuttal.  When he was re-called, he changed his opinion.  When asked by the judge why he changed his testimony, the plaintiff's expert testified, "I was confused by (the attorney's) cross-examination."  That cross-examination came through the geometric calculations which were done at counsel table by the state's resident electrical engineer, who gave the attorney the numbers so he could cross-examine plaintiff's expert.  It worked, and the expert was discredited.  The court, after findings of fact and conclusions of law, rejected the opinions of plaintiff's expert and entered judgment in favor of our client dismissing all claims.