About Nash Forensic
Nash Forensic is a firm providing forensic analysis of motorcycles, on and off-road vehicles, and other vehicles, their sub-systems, dynamics, vehicular reconstruction of incident hardware and vehicular platforms within the context of both product development and litigation. Also highly experienced with motorcycle riders and operators regarding proper or improper motorcycle riding.
We specialize in motorcycles and on and off-road vehicles inclusive of all-terrain vehicles and side-by-side vehicles. We know the vehicles, the industry and ride motorcycles extensively.
Nash Forensic is a top choice for attorneys litigating motorcycle cases. From initial case evaluation, to inspection, non-destructive and destructive testing, and motorcycle expert testimony through to the conclusion of your matter, we deliver top results and solve difficult and complex problems.
William Nash is a highly skilled motorcycle rider, former AMA race team crew chief and lead mechanic, motorcycle shop owner, and published professional motorcycle designer and builder.
Experienced with enterprise-threatening litigation.
Plaintiff and defense expert (50% plaintiff and 50% defense) regarding litigation of allegedly dangerous and defective motorcycles, products, parts, workmanship, warnings, failure to warn, motorcycle incidents and crashes, and motorcycle industry standards.
As a motorcycle shop owner and professional motorcycle designer and builder, William Nash is a “hands on” expert having personally built and fabricated ground-up, high-performance and high-power, custom motorcycles. William Nash regularly performs extensive and complicated mechanical work on motorcycles including engines, drivetrains, transmissions, wheels, brakes, electrical, suspension and is respected within the motorcycle industry as a professional motorcycle designer and builder.
Nash Forensic Cases
60 Million Dollar Verdict Against TESLA, Inc. & TESLA Motors Inc.
60.6 million dollar motorcycle crash jury verdict against Tesla, Inc., Tesla Motors Inc., and its employee driver after an improper left turn motor vehicle collision left a motorcycle rider with a serious traumatic brain injury and partial foot amputation.
Left turn crash into a motorcycle and failure to yield the right of way by a Tesla-owned Ford F250 service truck negligently operated by a Tesla employee while in the course and scope of employment. William Nash was the Plaintiff’s motorcycle expert and testified at trial.
Defense law firms were Quinn Emanuel Urquart & Sullivan, Reminger Co., LPA, Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reate LLP and Knight Hoppe Kurnik & Knight, LTD.
Anna Marie Dugan Norris, as Guardian of the Estate of Christopher Dugan, an incompetent person v. Tesla, Inc. f/k/a Tesla Motors, Inc., Kyle Kaszuba. William Nash motorcycle expert.
DUGAN v TESLA, Case No.: 49D04-1705-CT-018411. William Nash motorcycle expert.
287 Million Verdict Against Harley-Davidson
Harley-Davidson Tri Glide Trike Crash and Harley-Davidson Safety Recall (NHTSA Safety Recall 19v843, Harley-Davidson Safety Recall 0175). Harley-Davidson FLHTCUTG Tri Glide Trike motor vehicle unsafe and unreasonably dangerous resulting in two crashes and a fatality and culminating in MORRIS v HARLEY-DAVIDSON and .287B jury trial verdict.
Thank you to the Livingston County, New York jury that carefully listened to the facts and evidence, analyzed the facts and evidence, carefully weighed witness credibility, worked hard, understood the truth of the matter and did the right thing properly delivering justice in returning a 287 million dollar jury verdict for Plaintiff Mr. Harold Morris and the estate of decedent Ms. Pam Sinclair against Harley-Davidson Motor Company Group LLC in relation to defective, unsafe and unreasonably dangerous products manufactured by Harley-Davidson Motor Company Group LLC and Robert Bosch LLC.
The Harley-Davidson “Tri Glide” “Trike” “FLHTCUTG” motor vehicle is defective, unsafe and unreasonably dangerous. The Harley-Davidson Tri Glide Trike FLHTCUTG in these cases is the subject of two National Highway Traffic Safety Administration safety recalls.
Morris v Harley-Davidson was based upon two crashes (one Harley-Davidson trike crash in Florida and another Harley-Davidson trike crash in Pennsylvania) and a safety recall (NHTSA Recall 19v843, Harley-Davidson Recall 0175 unintended braking) allegedly performed after the first Harley-Davidson trike crash and improper repair of the subject Harley-Davidson Tri Glide Trike FLHTCUTG. The first Harley-Davidson trike crash in Florida resulted in serious injuries to Mr. Morris and his passenger Ms. Pam Sinclair. The second Harley-Davidson trike crash resulted in Ms. Pam Sinclair’s death and serious injuries sustained by Mr. Morris.
Notably there is a second National Highway Traffic Safety Administration safety recall appurentant to these vehicles NHTSA safety recall 22v781, Harley-Davidson recall 0635 yeilding a violation of Federal Motor Vehicle Standard 108 (FMVSS 108) requiring both software and hardware recall remedies in the context of unintended brake light illumination.
Damaged and defective wheel speed sensors combined with defective traction control software and hardware manufactured by and sold by Robert Bosch LLC and Harley-Davidson Motor Company Group LLC caused these two Harley-Davidson FLHTCUTG Tri Glide Trike crashes resulting in Harold Morris’ serious injuries and the wrongful death of Pam Sinclair.
The relevant Harley-Davidson Tri Glide Trike FLHTCUTG motor vehicle was proven in court to be defective, unsafe and unreasonably dangerous.
There are other crashes and litigation cases regarding Harley-Davidson Tri Glide Trikes around the United States concerning similar safety defects with regard to Harley-Davidson Tri Glide Trike FLHTCUTG motor vehicle platform.
NASH FORENSIC and William Nash take motor vehicle safety and the safety of the public seriously and are proud to have been a small part of this case and trial as the Plaintiff’s motorcycle liability expert.
Godspeed to the families involved in this foreseeable and preventable tragedy. William Nash motorcycle expert.
Products Liability Defense
Motorcycle manufacturer products liability defense case. Motorcycle dealership negligence defense case. Retained as the defense motorcycle expert for both a motorcycle manufacturer and a motorcycle dealership. A motorcyclist alleged a wobble on his motorcycle subsequent to custom work performance by a motorcycle dealership. Motorcyclist crashed on a straight section of interstate highway. Speed was an issue in this case. The cause of this crash was motorcycle rider error and the case was settled favorably for both the motorcycle manufacturer and the motorcycle dealership. William Nash motorcycle expert.
Products Manufacturer Defense Case
Motorcycle exhaust manufacturer products liability defense case. Motorcycle manufacturer strict products liability and negligence claims. Retained as a motorcycle manufacturer’s defense motorcycle expert.
Motorcyclist was riding on an interstate highway when he felt heat on his legs. The motorcycle’s engine subsequently stalled and the motorcyclist exited the interstate on to an offramp and stopped. The motorcyclist did not check or look at his motorcycle prior to a restart attempt. When the motorcyclist attempted to restart the motorcycle’s engine, the motorcycle exploded into flames seriously burning and injuring the motorcyclist.
The motorcycle’s exhaust system was found to have a large unintended hole in the exhaust pipe. The unintended hole in the exhaust pipe allowed flame and heat to melt and burn a gasoline fuel feed line to the motorcycle’s engine and a subsequent thermal event (fire) occurred. At issue was the exhaust system. Two inspections occurred of the Plaintiff’s motorcycle and the exhaust system. Not a single expert in this case knew the subject matter of what they were looking at during the inspections (other alleged experts in this matter fundamentally lacked the subject matter experience). All the other experts missed a number of critical modifications to the motorcycle that caused the exhaust pipe’s unintended hole therein. Prior to the inspections, the Plaintiff or another person at the Plaintiff’s direction removed relevant components from the subject motorcycle and spoliated evidence but had left an improper welded nut on the end of the exhaust system. The improper welded nut had been used to improperly thread and install an engine spark plug into the subject exhaust system to ignite unburnt gasoline from the engine to make a flame thrower in fact out of the exhaust system to make the subject motorcycle’s exhaust shoot flames out of the end of the exhaust pipe. This improper modification would allow the subject motorcycle to shoot flames out of its exhaust system on demand. No experts in the case knew what the purpose of the improper welded nut’s existence on the motorcycle was for and did not notice the existence of the improper welded nut at all during the inspection. Also, improper and substandard exhaust hardware was used holding the subject exhaust system to the motorcycle’s engine went unnoticed by all the experts present at the inspections. The existence of the improper welded nut only (the rest of flame thrower system had been removed prior to inspection) tipped William Nash off as to why the exhaust had a large unintended hole in it. The existence of the large unintended hole was directly attributable to improper work the Plaintiff either performed or directed to be performed to the subject motorcycle and the failure of the exhaust system was not due to a manufacturing or design defect. This case settled very favorably for the defendant motorcycle exhaust manufacturer. William Nash motorcycle expert.
%
PLAINTIFF WORK
%
Defense work
%
favorable outcomes
Berkeley County Sheriff v Motorcycle, Fatality
42 U.S.C § 1983 Motorcycle high speed police chase resulting in motorcycle rider’s fatality.
Motorcycle expert for the decedent motorcycle rider’s estate (Plaintiff’s motorcycle expert) in 1983 litigation against the Berkeley County Sheriff’s Office, Berkeley County, South Carolina, USA.
This was a difficult case because Plaintiff originally failed to stop his motorcycle for the police during an attempted traffic stop for allegedly speeding twenty miles an hour over the speed limit on an interstate highway offramp. Initially the mototcyclist did not stop his motorcycle for the Berkeley County Sheriff Deputy but later in the chase attempted to give up the chase and surrender. One might be tempted to think that’s what the motorcyclist gets for running from the police, but what happens if the motorcyclist tries to give up, surrender and stop during a chase, isn’t given that opportunity and is twice improperly struck by a police vehicle which causes him to lose control of the motorcycle, strike a telephone pole, and thereafter loses his life? 42 U.S.C. 1983 litigation follows.
Video of the motorcycle chase went viral around the world fast and caused protests in South Carolina because of the fatal outcome of the police chase. The police chase at times exceeded 100 miles an hour on public roadways and was extraordinarily dangerous to the participants and the public at large. In this case, the Plaintiff tried to give up the chase, stop and surrender the chase. Evidence was discovered showing a deputy in pursuit was having a telephone call with his wife during the pursuit while speeding at extraordinarily high speeds. At times during the chase the deputy was tailgating the motorcycle in a highly unsafe manner. The Berkeley County Sheriff’s Office police vehicle intentionally struck the motorcyclist twice (PIT maneuver) while the motorcycle rider was slowing down, signaling, and attempting to stop his motorcycle and trying to give up the chase. Because of the improper vehicular contacts between the police vehicle and the Clark motorcycle, decedent lost control of the motorcycle and struck a telephone pole and died at the crash scene.
Analysis of the dash cam video yielded important evidence of the motorcycle braking and slowing down signaling an intended end and surrender to the chase. PIT maneuvers (precision immobilization technique) are dangerous and can kill motorcycle riders.
William Nash wrote a lengthy report based on his analysis of the case materials regarding motorcycle operation and evidence that existed within the dash cam video regarding motorcycle operation. The case settled favorably to the Plaintiff’s estate after Mr. Nash’s motorcycle expert report. William Nash motorcycle expert.
Motorcycle Dealership Negligence Fatality
Motorcycle dealership negligence case. Retained as Plaintiff’s expert in fatal motorcycle crash in Los Angeles. Motorcycle crash occurred in the number 1 lane (fast lane) of 5 lanes. Motorcycle final point of rest was on the fog line (white line far right) 5 lanes from where the crash started. Although prior to the crash the motorcyclist was helmeted post crash the motorcyclist’s brain was found on the fog line. Bartels’ Harley-Davidson dealership had sold an unsafe used motorcycle without a proper inspection prior to sale. Although the presale inspection was documented and billed for, the inspection was substandard and below the standard of care because the dealership missed improperly installed components that yeilded an unsafe condition which caused this crash and fatality. William Nash was able to determine the cause of the motorcycle crash. The incident motorcycle was defective, unsafe and unreasonably dangerous. Motorcycle dealership’s conduct was below the standard of care because it missed and failed to repair a serious safety issue and was the actual and proximate cause of the motorcycle crash and hence the fatality. Father decedent left behind a seven year old son. Result was a major settlement for the seven year old. William Nash motorcycle expert.