Citation

Esslinger V, Kieselbach R, Koller R, Weisse B. Eng. Failure Anal. 2004; 11(4): 515-535.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2004, European Structural Integrity Society, Publisher Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

10.1016/j.engfailanal.2003.11.001

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

In 1998 a very severe railroad accident occurred in Germany. The case went to court for negligent homicide after a preliminary investigation had been performed. The accident had been caused by fracture of a wheel and the manufacturer of the wheel and the railroad company were accused. The defendants engaged a number of experts to investigate the different technical aspects of the accident for their defence. In spring 2003 the court decided to employ an unique procedure, to hear all experts consecutively to get the best possible overview of the different opinions and possibly find the real cause of the accident. After the court had heard the testimony of these 13 experts from 5 different countries it decided to discontinue the case since the guilt of the accused was deemed to be very small, if there was any guilt at all and that further technical investigations and expert testimony would most probably bring the court no nearer to a conviction. A failure analysis proper was not the subject of the court procedure and therefore a complete investigation was not carried out. The result of the hearing was in the opinion of most experts, that the accident could not be explained by the results of the investigations performed. Rather a singular incident or technological material phenomenon could have initiated the fatigue crack, which then caused the accident. Since all realistic aspects of the accident had been thoroughly investigated by the experts, only speculations on such incidents or phenomena were possible. 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.