Water, Wastewater, Hydraulic & Forensic Engineeering
As an expert in construction, civil engineering and water, sewer, wastewater and hydraulic engineering as well as experienced in operation and maintenance of the related facilities, John Shaw, P.E. is often asked to provide consulting and/or expert witness/forensic services to the legal profession, insurance companies and other engineering firms.
Forensic services typically include “mode of failure” analysis, review and critique of design and/or operations and maintenance, engineering “standard of practice or care” review as well as detailed engineering analysis, product suitability and construction defect issues.
John Shaw works widely as both an expert consultant and expert witness on forensic projects. Understanding the distinction between the two engagements and their implications in the discovery process is important during the process of case evaluation and advising legal counsel. John has devoted and continues to spend significant time and effort in learning and understanding the legal nuances associated with expert participation in the judicial process.
Pleasant Springs Properties & Nevada
Harvest Properties vs. Shadow Creek Properties of Nevada, LLC
(2007) Third Judicial Court of the State of Nevada
This case involves three mobile home parks located in Dayton, Silver Springs and Yerington, Nevada. Each park operates its own potable water (wells, storage, pumping, distribution, disinfection) and wastewater (collection, treatment and disposal) utilities. I have been retained to review the facilities as well as the operating, regulatory, construction and repair records of these utilities.
Reference:
Paul Matteoni, Esquire
Lewis & Roca, LLP
Bank of America Plaza
50 West Liberty Street, Suite 410
Reno, NV 89501
(775) 823-2900
http://www.lrlaw.com
Maryett vs. Preferred Properties
(2007) Sacramento Superior Court (Case No. 03AS03046)
This case involves the Regency Mobile Home Park located in Sacramento, California. I have been retained to review the facilities as well as the operating, regulatory, construction and repair records of the wastewater collection system.
Reference:
Pamela G. Lacey, Esquire
Cooksey, Toolen, Gage, Duffy & Woog
535 Anton Boulevard, Tenth Floor
Costa Mesa, California 92626
(714) 431-1100
http://www.cookseylaw.com/
Unknown vs. Lenare Community Services District
(2007) Fresno County Superior Court
This case involves the water quality issues associated with the District. I have been retained in this matter but have not been provided with the details or a course of work as yet.
Reference:
Robert Harding, Partner
Clifford & Brown, A Professional Corporation
1430 Truxtun Avenue, Suite 900
Bakersfield, California 93301
(661) 322-6023
http://www.cliffordbrownlawfirm.com/index.jsp
John F. Sharkey, et al.
vs. Reno Corporate Center, LLC, et al.
(2007)
This case is in progress and involves the flooding of several homes located in southeast Reno, Nevada. The subdivision has flooded historically every few years; however, capital projects were designed and constructed in 1991 by the City of Reno to prevent flooding in the future. In 2005/2006, flooding reoccurred during a heavy rain event. I am retained as an expert consultant in this matter and have reviewed the history of the area and its watersheds over the past 30 years and the design of recent developments downstream of the subdivision as well as other material.
Reference:
Mr. John Boyden, Partner
Erickson, Thorpe & Swainston, Ltd.
P.O. Box 3559
Reno, Nevada 89505
(775) 786-3930
http://www.etsreno.com
Pureleau vs. Town of Ladysmith, BC, Canada
(2007)
This case is in progress and involves a manufacturer of wastewater treatment equipment and a town in British Columbia, Canada. At present I have reviewed the agreements between the two parties as well as some performance testing and analysis that was performed by a third party engineering firm. At issue in this matter is whether or not the engineering firm acted reasonably in its evaluation of the performance of the manufacturer’s (Pureleau) product.
Reference:
J. Kenneth McEwan, Q.C., Partner
Farris, Vaughan, Wills & Murphy LLP
25th Floor, 700 W Georgia Street
Vancouver, BC V7Y 1B3
Canada
(604) 661-9356
http://www.farris.com
Susan Reed vs. DR Horton Homes
Eighth Judicial District Court of Clark County Nevada
(2007)
This case involved defects associated with a private pool, spa and water features. I reviewed the design drawings for the facility, conducted an inspection and provided a brief report of my findings. The case is currently in its early stages.
Reference:
Andrew Green, Esquire
McKay Law Firm, Chtd.
3295 N. Fort Apache Road, Suite 150
Las Vegas, Nevada 89129
(702) 835-6956
http://mckaylawfirmchtd.com
Darrell & Valerie Wildman vs. Lake of
the Woods Mutual Water Company, Inc and Patrick Banfield
(2007), Kern County Superior Court (Case No. S-1500-CV-258109
This case involved claims made by customers of the Mutual Water Company regarding the water quality provided as it pertained to specific health ailments. I was retained to review operational and regulatory records of the water company. This case was settled prior to court.
Reference:
Robert Harding, Partner
Clifford & Brown, A Professional Corporation
1430 Truxtun Avenue, Suite 900
Bakersfield, California 93301
(661) 322-6023
http://www.cliffordbrownlawfirm.com/index.jsp
John E. Holloway & Ann Holloway, Husband & Wife
vs. County of Storey, a Political Subdivision of the State of Nevada,
Ex REl Department of Public Works, et al.
Case No. CV 20037
(2007)
In this case, the home of a sewer customer of the Storey County Public Works Department was inundated with raw sewage as a result of a sewer main blockage. The sewer main was owned, operated and maintained by the Storey County Public Works Department. I reviewed materials and provided expert opinions on the source of the inundation, and the management, operation and maintenance programs, policies, procedures, personnel and funding of the Public Works Department. I was declared as an expert witness; however, I was not deposed. Shortly after I was declared, the defendant made an offer to settle, which was accepted by the plaintiff.
Reference:
Gordon Cowan, Esquire
Cowan Law Office
1495 Ridgeview Drive, Suite 90
Reno, Nevada 89519
(775) 786-6111 ext. 106
State of Arizona vs. Brent Henry Weidman
Superior Court of Arizona, County of Yuma
Case No. 53 SGJ 70
(2006)
This case was a criminal prosecution (two counts of manslaughter, one count of aggravated assault and one count of endangerment) of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Far West Water & Sewer, Inc. (FWW&S), an Arizona Corporation that provides operation and maintenance services of both potable water and municipal and industrial wastewater utilities. In 2001, two men died at a wastewater treatment facility at which a crew from FWW&S was present. One of the men who died was an employee of FWW&S, and one was employed by a third party contractor. The State of Arizona criminally prosecuted the companies that employed the two men who died (FWW&S and Santec Corporation, a Colorado Corporation). Santec plead guilty and FWW&S was found guilty of various charges.
In this case, I reviewed deposition and trial transcripts (from the trial concerning the companies), the operations and maintenance and safety program for FWW&S, safety training of staff, safety equipment inventories, certifications and licensure and other relevant qualifications of staff members of both companies.
I issued a preliminary report and was interviewed by the Arizona Attorney General’s office.
The jury in this case convicted Mr. Weidman of two counts of negligent homicide and two counts of endangerment.
Reference:
Michael D. Kimerer, Esquire
Amy Lynn Nyugen, Esquire
Kimerer & Derrick PC
221 E. Indianola Avenue
Phoenix Arizona 85012-2002
(602) 279-5900
Andersen vs. City of Ferndale, Washington (2006)
Superior Court of Washington, County of Whatcom
Case No. 03-2-00070-8
(2006)
In this case, the home of a sewer customers of the City of Ferndale was inundated with raw sewage as a result of sewer main blockage. The sewer mains were owned, operated and maintained by the City of Ferndale. I reviewed materials and provided expert opinions at trial (jury) on the source of the inundation, and the management, operation and maintenance programs, policies, procedures, personnel and funding of the Mt. View Sanitary District. The jury found in favor of the defendant and awarded $375,000.00 in damages.
Reference:
Steve Chance, Esquire
119 N. Commercial Street, Suite 275
Bellingham, Washington 98225
(360) 676-9700
Rubino vs. Mt. View Sanitary District (2006)
Superior Court of California, County of Contra Costa
Case No. C05-01096
(2006)
In this case, the home of a sewer customer of the Mt. View Sanitary District was inundated with raw sewage as a result of a sewer main blockage. The sewer main was owned, operated and maintained by the Mt. View Sanitary District. I reviewed materials and provided expert opinions on the source of the inundation, the management, operation and maintenance programs, policies, procedures, personnel and funding of the Mt. View Sanitary District. I was deposed on two occasions and also testified at the jury trial twice.
The jury found in favor of the plaintiff and awarded damages in excess of $100,000.
Reference:
Heidi Coad-Hermelin, Esquire
Sternberg & Coad-Hermelin, LLP
540 Lennon Lane
Walnut Creek, California 94598-2415
(925) 946-1400
Malibu Highlands Maintenance Corporation vs. Malibu Highlands
30, Ltd; Premier Group
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles
Case No. SC076373
(2003/2006)
In this action, the Home Owners Association (Malibu Highlands) has taken action against Premier Group (Premier), which is the original developer of the subdivision. As part of the subdivision, Premier had a sewer collection, treatment and disposal system designed and constructed to serve the development. The disposal system failed after several years of use.
In this case I reviewed the design, regulatory review and approval and also the operation and maintenance of the wastewater collection, treatment and disposal facilities. I also conducted an on-site invasive investigation to determine mode of failure of the disposal system and produced a report of my findings along with detailed recommendations and estimate of project cost and schedule.
The case settled in favor of the plaintiff. Defendant paid $2,900,000.
Reference:
George Bojic, Esquire
Anthony Livesay, Esquire
Bojic & Livesay, LLP
1400 N. Harbor Boulevard, Suite 615
Fullerton, California 92835
(714) 879-4200
Brian Kabateck, Esquire
Kabateck, Brown, Kellner
350 S. Grand Avenue, 39th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90071
(213) 217-5000
Burns vs. City of Los Altos (2004/2005)
Santa Clara County Superior Court of California, Case No. CV816239
In this case, the home of a sewer customer of the City of Los Altos, California was inundated with raw sewage as a result of a sewer main blockage. The sewer main was owned, operated and maintained by the City of Los Altos, California. I reviewed materials and provided expert opinions on the management, operation and maintenance programs, policies, procedures, personnel and funding of the City of Los Altos Sewer Department.
This case was brought against the City of Los Altos on the legal basis of reverse condemnation. My testimony was provided in deposition as well as trial, where I was accepted as an expert in the field of sewer collection system design, management, operation and maintenance.
The case was decided against the plaintiff.
Reference:
Bill Adams, Esquire
David Lee, Esquire
Fitzgerald Abbott & Beardsley, LLP
PO Box 12867
Oakland, California 94604-2867
(510) 451-3300
Email: wadams@fablaw.com
Harter Tomato Products vs. Harter Packing Partnership
(2003)
JAMS Case No. 1130002079; appeal 1130002455
Sutter Count Superior Court Case No. CVCS03-0541
In this action, Harter Tomato Products (Tomato) took action against Harter Packing Partnership (Packing) for breach of contract associated with the lease of a tomato and peach processing facility. Tomato, the third largest tomato producer in the world, had leased the facility from Packing. The facility included an operational industrial wastewater treatment and disposal facility, including a permit to discharge from the local regulatory authority. Tomato ran the facility and was responsible for regulatory compliance during the time of the lease. Tomato was found liable for damage associated with its conduct regarding the treatment and disposal facilities. That conduct included numerous violations of the discharge permit and a subsequent revocation of that permit.
On this case I reviewed operations logs of the wastewater treatment plant, design modifications made to the plant, all of the discharge reports, and analytical quality control results, correspondence and depositions.
Based upon this material I provided my opinions as to the operational shortcomings and discharge violations.
The case was adjudicated through binding arbitration in front of a three judge (retired) panel. I was admitted as an expert in the field of wastewater collection, treatment and disposal systems and testified in the arbitration hearing.
Reference:
Legal Counsel for Harter Packing Partnership
David Boyd, Esquire
Boyd & Kimball, LLC
Sacramento, California
(916) 917-0700
Adobe Lumber vs. Harold Taecker, et al.
Eastern District Court, Case No. CIV S-02-0186 GEB GGH (2002/2003)
In this action, Adobe Lumber (Adobe), the owner of a commercial mall, which included a dry cleaning facility, took action against the previous owners and operators of the dry cleaning facility (Harold Taecker, et al.) for damages associated with 1,2,3 Trichloropropane (TCP) contamination of facilities, soils and groundwater in and around the site. As well, Adobe contended that the City of Woodland was liable due to poor operation and maintenance of its sewer collection system, which Adobe contended exacerbated the problem by allowing the contaminants to be spread through leaks in the sewer system.
On this case I reviewed operation and maintenance protocols of the City of Woodland, repair history, environmental studies associated with the contaminant plumes, and conducted an invasive investigation of the sewer lines.
Based upon this material I provided my opinions as to the potential liability of the City of Woodlands.
The City was released from the case; however, the case is still in litigation.
Reference:
Legal Counsel for the City of Woodlands
Kevin Collins, Esquire
Tom Gibson, Esquire
Gene Tanaka, Esquire
Best, Best & Krieger, LLP
Sacramento, California
(916) 325-4000
City of Folsom, California vs. Spink Corporation
Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento Case No. 00AS02690.
(2001/2002)
In this action, the City of Folsom (COF) claimed that the Spink Corporation (Spink) did not meet the standard of care regarding the design of a raw water gravity transmission line that was constructed between the Folsom Dam and a large industrial user. At one point, the water that was introduced at the dam exceeded the carrying capacity of the line and ended up flooding houses within a subdivision.
In this case I reviewed operation and maintenance logs of a water conveyance system and a treatment plant that also used the line for conveying water, the design contract, design calculations and drawings, correspondence, as-built drawings and depositions.
Based upon this material I provided my expert opinions as to the “standard of care” associated with this project as well as mode of failure and causation. During my review of the operational logs of the water treatment plant, I discovered that the design flow of the line was exceeded because the water treatment plan operators did not follow standard operating procedure and inform the Dam operators to reduce the flow in the water line.
The action was withdrawn by the City of Folsom following the direct and cross examination of the City’s operational staff that was on duty at the treatment plant at the time of the event in question. I was admitted as an expert in the field of water treatment and conveyance systems and testified during the arbitration hearing prior to withdrawal of the action by the City of Folsom.
Reference:
Legal Counsel for Spink Corporation
Gary L. Vinson, Esquire
Greve, Clifford, Wengel & Paras, LLP
Sacramento, California
(916) 443-2011
