Michael A. K. Liebschner, Ph.D., P.E.

Expert QuestionS & AnswerS

Your work spans both accident reconstruction and slip-and-fall investigation — how do these two areas interact, and when does a problem in one lead to issues in the other?

Accident reconstruction and slip‑and‑fall analyses differ in how the event is evaluated, but they intersect at injury consistency. In both, the key question is whether the claimed injuries align with the mechanics of the event. While the scenarios themselves remain different, inconsistencies in the injury analysis can raise issues that can shed light into how incidents occur.

You’ve both trained others in your field and testified as an expert witness — what’s the biggest challenge in communicating complex biomechanics findings to a non-technical audience like a jury?

The biggest challenge is deciding what matters to the jury versus what only matters to the engineering analysis. Biomechanics can involve detailed modeling and many behind the scenes work, but jurors need clear, relevant points. The goal is to translate complex findings into simple, accurate explanations without losing the science or overstating conclusions.

Pedestrian accident reconstruction requires integrating vehicle data with human movement analysis — what evidence is most critical for establishing what actually happened?

Pedestrian accident reconstruction relies on integrating vehicle data, scene evidence, and injury patterns. Vehicle data, such as speed and braking, defines the timing and severity of the event, while physical evidence—such as impact location, debris, and rest positions—establishes how the collision occurred. Injury patterns are then used to confirm pedestrian motion and position, allowing the findings to be cross‑checked for consistency across physics and biomechanics.

Back to top