Human Factors in the Courtroom Science in Pursuit of Truth

Can a deeper comprehension of human psychology contribute to the legal profession's pursuit of justice? In the realm of tort law, considerable attention is devoted to investigating accidents and their underlying causes. Often, the determination of liability hinges on how an individual interacts with a machine, such as a car, manufacturing device, or even an aircraft. To appropriately allocate responsibility and damages, it is essential to understand why an accident occurred and what reasonable preventive measures could have been taken. Regardless of whether one is a plaintiff or defendant, the administration of justice necessitates the identification of design flaws, disclosure of unreasonable operating instructions, and clarification of appropriate usage and expectations. Such tasks are impossible without acknowledging the crucial element of human factors.

Unfortunately, a prevalent but flawed assumption within the legal system is the belief that it is feasible to decipher the thoughts and intentions of defendants (Uttal, 2006). This notion is unattainable and wastes time during litigation, as both parties strive to convince judges or juries that they possess complete insight into the individuals’ minds.

There is a clear and practical solution to address these challenges. The argumentation within the legal system should prioritize the application of scientific principles. By cleansing the courtroom of subjectivity and prejudice, the focus can shift towards objective facts rather than personalities and reputation. Scientific objectivity ought to serve as the sturdy foundation for constructing compelling arguments. Just as astronomy replaced astrology and chemistry replaced alchemy (Huber, 1991), the legal system should embrace the authority of scientific objectivity.

?

As a lifelong aviation professional, I have witnessed firsthand the critical role of Human Factors in ensuring aviation safety and driving advancements in the field. My passion for aviation began at a young age. I soloed an airplane on my 16th birthday and started working as a certified flight instructor while still in my teenage years. Building on this foundation, I spent 20 years in the Air Force and reserves, piloting high-performance jet fighter aircraft. With over 30 years of experience as an airline pilot, including extensive service as a captain, I currently hold the position of Boeing 777 captain, gaining invaluable operational expertise on a global scale. Moreover, my commitment to furthering my knowledge led me to become a licensed attorney in California and pursue a master's degree in the psychology of human factors.

With this unique blend of qualifications and expertise, I am confident that I can provide valuable insights and make meaningful contributions to any legal team engaged in investigating tort liability cases where the interactions between humans and machines are central. By leveraging my comprehensive understanding of Human Factors science, I believe we can significantly enhance the chances of success and achieve favorable outcomes within the courtroom.

The study of anthropometrics, initially pioneered by Leonardo DaVinci in the early 16th century, marks an essential milestone in our understanding of human-machine interactions. DaVinci's exploration of bird flight aimed to unlock the secrets of nature's design and inspire the creation of a machine that would enable human beings to fly. This pursuit of knowledge laid the foundation for anthropometry, which focuses on measuring the body's physical features. In modern times, anthropometry is crucial in manufacturing processes, particularly in developing machines designed for optimal human interface. By considering human body dimensions and ergonomics, manufacturers strive to ensure that their products align with the capabilities and needs of users.

Fast-forwarding to the early 1900s, we encounter the groundbreaking work of industrial engineers Frank and Lillian Gilbreth. They introduced the concept of "callbacks," a practice reinforcing instructions to guarantee effective communication between operating surgeons and their assistants. This approach involved repeating instructions and has found a prominent place in aviation today. Specifically, in the aviation industry, we rely on reading back clearances and checklist items in the cockpit to ensure accurate communication and prevent errors. Aviation has long been at the forefront of incorporating human factors research into its practices, recognizing the significance of human-machine interactions and their impact on safety and operational efficiency.

By drawing on this rich history and the ongoing advancements in Human Factors, we can navigate the complexities of tort liability cases with a deep understanding of the intricacies involved in human-machine interactions. Applying evidence-based principles and practices, we can uncover critical insights, identify design flaws, evaluate human performance, and contribute to the fair and just resolution of legal disputes. A thorough grasp of Human Factors science can empower legal teams with a competitive edge, enabling them to present compelling arguments grounded in objective knowledge and enhancing the prospects of success within the courtroom.

The prima facie case for negligence arises when the defendant's actions create an unreasonable risk to another person, resulting in injury (Basick, 2020). The field of human factors study aims to minimize accidents and enhance safety, but significant challenges remain. Throughout the history of human factors engineering, numerous instances of poorly designed human-machine interfaces leading to injuries and fatalities have been documented (Gawron et al., 2006). Disturbingly, the Institute of Medicine reports that medical errors cause between 44,000 and 98,000 deaths annually in the United States, ranking it as the eighth leading cause of death (Gawron et al., 2006). Disregarding the principles of Human Factors means ignoring avoidable risks in sectors such as medical care, air travel, and automotive safety. Neglecting a proper understanding of Human Factors can significantly increase accident rates, leading to a corresponding rise in legal culpability.

In simple terms, manufacturers, hospitals, and operators of transportation systems have a duty of care. As every attorney recognizes, we must all conduct ourselves reasonably, given the circumstances. Different standards of care apply depending on the specific situation. Manufacturers, for instance, bear heightened levels of responsibility and fall under the scope of product liability, which encompasses various sub-areas of law. One prominent aspect is the concept of defective products, further classified into manufacturing, design, and warning defects.

Perhaps one of the most notable automobile cases that garnered public attention was the Chevrolet Corvair in the early 1960s. The vehicle tended to roll over during sharp turns (Akamatsu, 2013). Consumer advocate Ralph Nader gained prominence by exposing this danger in his book "Unsafe at Any Speed." Congressional hearings were conducted, leading to the eventual cessation of production. The Corvair was found to have a design flaw that could have been prevented through a comprehensive human factors analysis, a fundamental principle in human factors design (Laliu, 2017).

Another critical aspect of product manufacturing is the placement of adequate warnings on inherently dangerous products. For example, a lawnmower would not be functional without a spinning blade capable of cutting. A warning defect occurs when the manufacturer fails to provide sufficient warnings about a known or foreseeable danger (Basick, 2020). At a minimum, a warning should include a signal word to convey the severity of the risk, an explanation of the nature of the risk, and the potential consequences of disregarding the risk (Rogers, 2000). It is essential to communicate these risks clearly. An example might be "danger: high-speed metal cutting blade, potential for serious injury." While this may seem excessive to those outside the legal realm, warning defects have resulted in significant financial losses for manufacturers over the years. Proper warnings are a simple and cost-effective way to prevent lawsuits and injuries.

?

So, how does knowledge of human factors contribute to the pursuit of justice? When manufacturing any product or providing a service, human factors must be diligently considered to ensure the safest and most efficient outcome. For instance, a lawnmower should not only effectively cut grass but also do so in a safe manner when operated reasonably. Technological advancements must be incorporated into the design and manufacturing processes. Recognizing the inevitable presence of human error in any system, questions must be asked during development. What factors contribute to human error? How can instructions minimize usage errors and provide appropriate warnings (Nazaruk & Hughes, 2019)?

?

It should be noted that not all injuries result from negligence by the manufacturer or service provider. In a notable case, the NBC show "Dateline" staged several crashes where General Motors cars were shown to burst into flames upon impact (Akamatsu, 2013). GM conducted a thorough investigation and discovered that NBC had placed rocket igniters at the impact points to ignite the fires. This example highlights how a defense team can employ their knowledge of human factors to question the case, resulting in GM being awarded damages due to the deception. Most accidents are caused by misuse of the product in various forms. A legal team with a solid background in human factors will likely identify such misuse and negate liability. Even the military is not immune to product misuse. In a study conducted by the Czechoslovakian Air Force, over half of the investigated crashes were attributed to pilot errors or noncompliance with instructions (Zavila, 2021). In the modern aviation industry, the ratio is even higher. An attorney involved in a case where human-machine interactions are at the core of an accident must possess a comprehensive understanding of human factors to represent the client effectively.

Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence outlines the requirements for expert witnesses, stating that they must possess the necessary skill, training, and experience to assist the factfinder in understanding the evidence based on facts and data. Furthermore, their testimony must be based on reliable principles and methods appropriately applied. Human Factors perfectly align with these criteria, as applied psychology’s subdivision exclusively deals with facts and data. Human Factors easily meets the rigorous interpretations of the Daubert rule and Rule 702.

?

Damages resulting from negligence fall within the realm of tort law, making it one of the most common types of lawsuits after contract disputes. Any lawyer who does not understand human factors starts at a disadvantage in court. To effectively represent their client, an attorney without expertise in human factors must seek the assistance of legal counsel with the necessary knowledge in this field. Failing to do so jeopardizes proper client representation and risks unfavorable outcomes in court. I have studied Human Factors for over 30 years as a fighter pilot and airline captain, gaining insights in the classroom and real-world scenarios. As an attorney, I possess a unique understanding of the legal landscape that many Human Factors experts lack. I believe that my qualifications make me exceptionally well-suited to provide significant value to any legal team involved in cases where negligence is a factor and human-machine interactions are at play, particularly in aviation.

References

Akamatsu, M., Green, P., & Bengler, K. (2013). Automotive technology and human factors research: Past, present, and future. International Journal of Vehicular Technology. Retrieved from https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A376391184/AONE?u=canyonuniv&sid=bookmark-AONE&xid=4b762f81

?

Basick, M., & Schindler, T. (2020). Essay Exam Writing for the California Bar Exam. Walters Kluwer in New York. ISBN 978-1-5438-1350-0

?

Gawron, V. J., Drury, C. G., Fairbanks, R. J., & Berger, R. C. (2006). Medical error and human factors engineering: Where are we now? American Journal of Medical Quality, 21(1), 57+. Retrieved from https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A144204021/AONE?u=canyonuniv&sid=bookmark-AONE&xid=4eed8244

?

Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literature. Organization Science, 2(1), 88–115. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.88

?

LaliU, A. (2017). Time-Series Analysis and Modelling to Predict Aviation Safety Performance Index. Transport Problems, 12(3), 51+. Retrieved from https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A544562257/AONE?u=canyonuniv&sid=bookmark-AONE&xid=abc7713d

?

Nazaruk, M., & Hughes, B. (2019). A brief history: The evolution of human factors, human performance. Understanding the origins of these terms can help the drilling industry to more effectively apply underlying principles to improve safety performance.

?

Rogers, W. A., Lamson, N., & Rousseau, G. K. (2000). Warning Research: An Integrative Perspective. Human Factors, 42(1), 102. Retrieved from https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A63993988/AONE?u=canyonuniv&sid=bookmark-AONE&xid=b24803c4

?

Zavila, O. (2021). Human Factors in Aviation Disasters of Military Jet Aircraft of Czechoslovakia and the Czech Republic. Advances in Military Technology, 16(1), 59–74. https://doi.org/10.3849/aimt.01451