In one of my recent cases, in which I testified as an expert, a young lady tripped on the top step of a stair to the second floor in an office building. Her trip propelled her forward, causing her to hit her head on the wall directly in front of her, just about four feet from the top step. She broke her neck. After getting out of the hospital, she contacted an attorney, so as to attempt to recover lost wages and to seek some retribution. He in turn called on this expert, asking me to determine if there was a problem with the stair as constructed and, if so, to state what the problem was. Once I measured the steps, I knew exactly what was wrong. All of the steps were seven inches high except the top step, which was eight and one quarter inches. The maximum differential from riser to riser, allowed by code, is only one quarter of an inch. 

After I wrote my report stating the case and the cause of the problem, we went through all of the standard legal procedures. The opposing attorney retained a so-called engineering expert to rebut my report. He wrote his report. This engineer did not know anything about stairs; most engineers do not. He had misconstrued a section in the building code that allows for a variation in the height of a riser at a bottom step of a series due to the variation of the exterior grade, i.e., the slope of a sidewalk at the bottom of the stair. I rebutted his report. He rebutted my rebuttal. Settlement negotiations took place, dragging on and on, but ended with no agreement. So we all ended up in court, ready for trial.