December 14, 2017
3:30 – 5:00 PM Seminar
When damages are at stake, the plaintiff and defendant often hire damage experts to help the trier of fact determine the appropriate amount to award to the injured party if liability is established. Each expert is supposed to provide an objective analysis of the case and opine with reasonable certainty to the damages that were incurred. So why does it often seem that the two experts arrive at damage opinions that look like they belong in two different cases? Why is the plaintiff’s expert’s opinion of damages almost always higher than the defendant’s expert’s opinion of damages? This webinar will use real case examples to explore the reasons why divergent opinions can occur, including:
This course is pending by the Supreme Court of Ohio Commission on Continuing Legal Education and the Kentucky Bar Association Continuing Legal Education Commission for 1.5 total CLE credits.