Home Services Contact Us Seminars Learn About Human Factors Resources

Click for a current CV.

  • Accepted as an expert by courts in the United States, Canada, United Kingdom and Singapore;
  • Over 95% of cases in the US: Alabama, Arkansas, British Columbia, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, New Mexico, Nevada, Nova Scotia, Ohio, Oklahoma, Ontario, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, West Virginia
  • Interviewed by media including CTV, CBC and Global TV networks, CBC radio, IEEE Radio, National Public Radio and for the book, The Third Team about NFL officials.
  • Case areas include personal injury, criminal, intellectual property, & consumer;
  • Retained in about 900 cases;and
  • Cases split roughly split between defense and plaintiff;

  • M. A. (reaction time) and Ph. D. (vision) in experimental psychology;
  • 42 years basic and applied experience;
  • 100 publications and numerous presentations;
  • Postdoctoral fellowships at Brown Univ. and Univ. Cal. Berkeley.
  • Research grants from National Eye Institute, National Science Foundation, National Science and Engineering Research Committee, US Air Force Armstrong Aerospace Medicine Laboratory and others;
  • Teaching experience includes vision & perception (undergraduate, graduate, optometry and medical students), experimental psychology (undergraduates), introductory psychology (undergraduates), psychology of motivation (undergraduates), statistics (undergraduates), applied behavior analysis (undergraduates), human factors (undergraduates), cognitive science (undergraduates) and others;
Click Here For Some Representative Scientific Publications

Typical Cases

Transportation Accidents

  • Whether the reflective tape would make the truck more conspicuous;
  • Whether the ATV should have been carrying a passenger;
  • Whether the helicopter pilot should have see the approaching airplane;
  • Whether the driver should have seen and avoided the stopped vehicle;
  • Whether the driver should have seen the road construction worker;
  • Whether driver should have seen a pedestrian in time to avoid accident;
  • Whether driver's reaction time was reasonable;
  • Whether a driver should have seen road signs and signals;
  • Whether vision of older driver contributed pedestrian knock down;
  • Whether objects on car dashboard impaired vision;
  • Whether driver's visual impairment contributed a fatal traffic collision;
  • Whether driver should have seen trailer blocking roadway at night; and
  • Whether a driver properly controlled steering around a curve.
  • Whether a subway train driver could have stopped before hitting a pedestrian
  • Whether the locomotive headlights provided enough illumination to see the pedestrian
  • Whether driver had sufficient sightline to avoid the collision;
  • Whether driver could correctly judge the time-to-arrival of the approaching train;
  • Whether driver could have seen rail-highway crossing warnings;
  • Whether Signal lights were obscured by sun reflection; and
  • Whether a boater should have seen the signal lights of an approaching vessel;
  • Warnings

  • Whether a drug label served as an adequate warning;
  • Whether the safety warning on a gun was adequate;
  • Whether beach signs were adequate warning;
  • Whether "no diving signs" would affect behavior;
  • Whether the dangers of asbestos were foreseeable;
  • Whether an auditory backup warning could have prevented a forklift accident;
  • Whether a warning could have prevented an industrial accident;
  • Whether the warning on lighter fluid was adequate; and
  • Whether a better helmet warning would have prevented a spinal injury.
  • Product Defects

  • Whether lack of off-throttle steering caused a personal watercraft collision;
  • Whether a chemical sprayer was properly designed;
  • Whether the helmet obscured vision;
  • Whether the bolt securing the construction equipment was properly designed;
  • Whether a safety lock on a piece of equipment was properly designed;
  • Whether failure to test restraint of child car seats contributed to a death; and
  • Whether design of a fast fryer appliance contributed to a severe burn.
  • Trip & fall

  • Whether lighting conditions contributed to a fall down stairs;
  • Whether an elderly woman could have been expected to avoid a trip and fall;
  • Whether pattern on stairs contributed to a fall;
  • Whether light was adequate for an elderly man to a avoid tripping on a curb; and
  • What factors contributed to a fall down a steep slope.
  • Criminal & Police

  • Whether an eyewitness could accurately identify a suspect seen in dim light;
  • Whether a state trooper intended to hit a suspect with his car;
  • Whether reaction time was sufficient to fire a rifle in fatal shooting;
  • Whether witness estimates of speed were reliable in a police chase;
  • Why a man congenital nystagmus flunked a sobriety test; and
  • Whether visibility was sufficient for police officers to perceive actions of a suspect in shooting.
  • Also

  • Whether the color of drug pills could be trademarked;
  • Whether colors used in plaintiff's tradedress were functional;
  • Whether packaging imitated tradedress of a competitor;
  • Whether consumers will use context to avoid trademark and name confusion;
  • Whether the photographs accurately represent what the driver saw;
  • Whether the nurse made an error;
  • What are the bias factors in judging forensic evidence; and
  • Whether lighting was sufficient.
  • | Home | Experience | Services | Contact Us  | Seminars/CLE | Human Factors  | Resources |

    Copyright © 2013 Marc Green, Phd
    Home Page:
    Contact Us