Geotechnical engineer
Expert class library · Construction · Either side
Addresses soil conditions, settlement, landslides, sinkholes and foundation failures and whether site investigation and design were adequate. Courts admit geotechnical opinions grounded in borings, field tests and an explained line of reasoning, and exclude reports that state a conclusion without showing how the test data support it or that rest on a narrow review of materials supplied by counsel.
Ask this expertPreview
A preview of this class of expert, built from the public rulings on this page. Ask how the testimony is built, attacked or defended. 20 questions free with a firm email.
What this expert is retained to answer
- What borings, penetration tests or laboratory tests did the expert perform or rely on, and where were they located?
- Does the report explain how the test results lead to the cause identified, such as sinkhole activity rather than ordinary settlement or organic decay?
- Did the expert review the full record, or only materials selected by counsel?
- How did the expert rule out competing causes of foundation distress offered by the other side's engineer?
- If the opinion addresses repair cost, what estimating data and assumptions support it?
Methods
- Subsurface boring and test review
- Standard penetration testing (ASTM D1586)
- Settlement and slope stability analysis
- Foundation design review
- Sinkhole and karst investigation
How the testimony is attacked
- Conclusion without methodology. Challengers argue the report lists findings but never explains how they show the claimed cause. In Daniels v. Erie Insurance Group the Middle District of Tennessee held an initial sinkhole report inadmissible for that reason, but admitted the revised opinion once borings and deposition testimony supplied the reasoning.
- Narrow review of counsel's materials. Opponents show the engineer reviewed only what counsel supplied and did little independent research. In Harvey v. Board of Commissioners for the Orleans Levee District the Louisiana Court of Appeal upheld exclusion of a geotechnical engineer's levee failure report on that basis under Article 702.
- Reliance on another firm's testing. An expert who simply critiques the other side's investigation without doing his own work is vulnerable. Daniels found the first report, which rested entirely on the opposing firm's tests, insufficient, while borings the expert commissioned supported the revised opinion.
- Cost estimates and estimating databases. Challengers attack repair or cure cost estimates as unreliable. In Prakhin v. United States the Court of Federal Claims admitted a structural and geotechnical engineer's cost estimates built with RSMeans data, holding that a different estimate from the other side went to weight.
- Report versus deposition elaboration. Defendants argue the expert cannot cure a thin report through deposition testimony. Daniels held that Rule 26 does not confine an expert to reading the report and considered the deposition explanation in deciding admissibility.
What the public record shows
A deliberately narrow CourtListener search, geotechnical AND (settlement OR soil OR foundation OR landslide) AND expert AND (Daubert OR "Rule 702"), returned 17 opinions filed since 2015, as of October 3, 2026; broader searches return more. Three that show how courts handle this class of testimony:
| Outcome | Case | Court | Why |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excluded | Harvey v. Board of Commissioners for the Orleans Levee District236 So. 3d 763 | La. Ct. App. 2017 | The court found no abuse of discretion in excluding, under Louisiana Code of Evidence article 702, a geotechnical engineer's report on levee and floodwall failures because he reviewed only a limited set of materials supplied by counsel and did no independent research. |
| Admitted | Daniels v. Erie Insurance Group291 F. Supp. 3d 835 | M.D. Tenn. 2017 | The court held an engineer's initial sinkhole report failed Rule 702 for lack of any explained methodology, but declined to exclude his revised opinion based on standard penetration test borings and deposition testimony explaining his reasoning, and denied summary judgment. |
| Admitted | Prakhin v. United StatesNo. 14-924L (Fed. Cl. Mar. 10, 2023) | Fed. Cl. 2023 | In a takings case over sand accumulation, the court denied a motion to preclude a licensed engineer trained in structural and geotechnical engineering from estimating the cost to cure, holding that objections to his data and estimating methods went to weight. |
Each case links to the free opinion text on CourtListener.
Under amended Rule 702
Since December 1, 2023, Rule 702 says expressly that the party offering an expert must show the court it is more likely than not that the testimony meets each requirement: that it rests on sufficient facts or data, uses reliable methods, and reflects a reliable application of those methods to the case. Questions about the basis of an opinion are no longer automatically matters of weight for the jury. For how the circuits have applied the amendment, see the Rule 702 tracker, which follows each court of appeals; for what that means for preparing or attacking this class of expert, see the guide on amended Rule 702.
Related classes
Guides
Simulating this class on a matter
Supreme Mind simulates a class of expert, never a named individual, on your fact pattern and returns the likely opinion, the ranked cross-examination weaknesses, the Rule 702 attack surface and what it means for settlement. Read how it works, or book a demo.
Last reviewed October 3, 2026. How this page is built: rulings are found by searching court opinions on CourtListener, and each one is read in the opinion before it is summarised here; outcomes are labelled by what the court did with the expert's testimony. No individual expert is named. This page summarises public decisions for orientation and is not legal advice; read the opinion before relying on any ruling.