---
title: "Civil Engineering Expert’s Testimony on Glulam Beams’ Failure Admitted"
meta:
  "og:description": "The civil engineering expert was allowed to testify because of his experience in designing cold storage facilities"
  "og:title": "Civil Engineering Expert’s Testimony on Glulam Beams’ Failure Admitted"
  author: "Expert Witness Profiler"
  description: "The civil engineering expert was allowed to testify because of his experience in designing cold storage facilities"
---

# Civil Engineering Expert’s Testimony on Glulam Beams’ Failure Admitted

Posted on September 17, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler

Defendant D.R. Johnson Lumber Co. is an engineered wood productsmanufacturer located in Riddle, OR. Plaintiff Jasmine Vineyards, Inc. is a grower of table grapes located in Delano, CA.

Plaintiff asserted a negligence claim against Defendant based on allegations that Defendant “fabricated and/or supplied glulam wood beams in connection with a commercial construction project for Plaintiff” in Kern County, California, to contractors hired by Plaintiff to perform the construction services.

On May 9, 2025, Plaintiff disclosed to Defendant pursuant to [Rule 26(a)(2)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_26) its notice of non-retained expert witness and the report of [Joseph Engel](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Joseph-Engel/1568186). Defendant filed a motion to exclude evidence and testimony anticipated to be offered by expert witness Engel.

## **Civil Engineering Expert Witness**

[Joseph C. Engel](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Joseph-Engel/1568186) has a bachelor’s degrees in civil and mechanical engineering from the University of California at Davis. He has been practicing as a licensed civil and structural engineer for over 40 years.

As a part of his practice, Engel has designed at least 75 cold storage rooms.

[Want to know more about the challenges Joseph Engel has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/order/add?eId=1568186&amp;pId=3).  

## **Discussion by the Court**

#### **Engel is Qualified to Render the Challenged Opinions**

To begin with, Defendant advanced various complaints about Engel’s lack of qualifications, including his lack of employment history in a glulam beam manufacturing plant and his failure to review discovery documents to inform his opinions and conclusions. 

Engel sought to opine that he observed gaps in the glue between the glulam beams’ lamina and that such gaps resulted in shear stresses that compromised the integrity of the beams. He specifically noted that, “regardless of the reason of the glued joint failure, the evidence of the failure can be clearly seen when the failed beam is carefully examined.” 

Engel’s degrees in civil and mechanical engineering, his state licensures in civil and structural engineering, his long experience in the field, his experience designing cold storage facilities specifically for table grape storage, including the facility at issue here, and the fact that he has testified at deposition numerous times and recently was qualified in a state court civil case as an expert witness in structural engineering demonstrates sufficient “knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.”

Moreover, Engel is not being proffered to render opinions concerning the nature and composition of the glue used in the glulam beams, or to offer opinions about why or how any glue deficiencies occurred. Thus, the Court disagreed with Defendant’s proposition that only a “glue or glue performance” expert could opine about the import of gaps observed in a beam and whether such gaps could compromise a beam. 

#### **Engel’s Opinions are Relevant and Would Assist the Jury**

In arguing that Engel should be precluded from testifying because his testimony would not assist the jury, Defendant relies on the same argument advanced regarding Engel’s lack of qualifications as a “glue expert” and points out that Engel based his opinions only on his physical observations and moisture testing of the beams, but did not take samples from the beams.

Otherwise, Defendant did not directly challenge that Engel relied on improper data or applied unreliable principles and methods in rendering his opinions. This is not surprising given that Defendant’s expert witness, Ali Moradi, similarly relied on his physical observations and moisture measurements of the glulam beams to arrive at competing conclusions regarding the cause of the beams’ alleged failure. 

Given that the parties’ two relevant expert witnesses in this case relied on similar types of data and moisture measurements in forming their opinions and conclusions, the Court found that for purposes of Defendant’s pretrial motion to exclude that Plaintiff has shown it is more likely than not that Engel relied on sufficient facts and data and applied reliable principles and methods in rendering his opinions.

Defendant’s argument that Engel’s opinions are irrelevant because they do not squarely address whether Defendant breached the applicable standard of care is unpersuasive. Whether or not expert testimony is necessary in this case on the applicable duty of care and breach thereof, Plaintiff must also prove causation to prevail on its negligence cause of action. 

## **Held**

The Court denied Defendant D.R. Johnson Lumber Co.’s motion to exclude the evidence and testimony of Joseph Engel.

## **Key Takeaway:**

The extent of Engel’s specialized knowledge in the specific field of glulam beam failure goes to the weight afforded to his opinion by the trier of fact, not to its admissibility.

## **Case Details:**

---

## **You Might Also Like**

![Intellectual Property Expert&#39;s Opinion on Misappropriation Excluded](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/blog-pic-640X480-2026-03-13T205412.117.jpg) [**Intellectual Property Expert’s Opinion on Misappropriation Excluded**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/civil-engineering-experts-testimony-on-glulam-beams-failure-admitted/intellectual-property-experts-opinion-on-misappropriation-excluded)![Automotive Industry Expert&#39;s Testimony on Pricing Practices Excluded](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/blog-pic-640X480-2026-03-13T191143.335.jpg) [**Automotive Industry Expert’s Testimony on Pricing Practices Excluded**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/civil-engineering-experts-testimony-on-glulam-beams-failure-admitted/automotive-industry-experts-testimony-on-pricing-practices-excluded)![Consumer Credit Expert Allowed to Opine on Mixed Files](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/blog-pic-640X480-2026-03-13T160600.039.jpg) [**Consumer Credit Expert Allowed to Opine on Mixed Files**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/civil-engineering-experts-testimony-on-glulam-beams-failure-admitted/consumer-credit-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-mixed-files)![Appraisal Expert&#39;s Testimony on Deceptiveness Excluded](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/blog-pic-640X480-2026-03-11T194055.299.jpg) [**Appraisal Expert’s Testimony on Deceptiveness Excluded**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/civil-engineering-experts-testimony-on-glulam-beams-failure-admitted/appraisal-experts-testimony-on-deceptiveness-excluded)![Psychology Expert Allowed to Opine on EMDR Therapy](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/blog-pic-640X480-2026-03-11T153456.164.jpg) [**Psychology Expert Allowed to Opine on EMDR Therapy**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/civil-engineering-experts-testimony-on-glulam-beams-failure-admitted/psychology-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-emdr-therapy)