Case Law V. Field Practice
It is one thing to be able to spout off Cases and yet another to use that information when practicing "in the field."
I have learned that most case law is based on negligent surveying practice and that comes forward as "laws." Therefore we are faced with bad surveying making bad laws.
During my almsot 30 years of practice I have found that the courts want to hear what the surveyor has to say and I have never had an attack on my surveying except once, and the judge put an end to that questioning. (It had to do with tidal influences on a shore rights case.)
When I read the cases the answers are pretty obvious to me. I am not sure who posted the comment that our work is just plain common sense, but that is the truth.
We do have to know the law of property transfer and description writing but it all boils down to practical common sense.
This is the area that we should be serving and paying attention to in our daily practice. Does this solution make the most sense?
The courts allow us to testify as experts because we are the ones that do this day in and day out. We understand the local practice, we measure daily, we interpret deeds on every project, and the judges need to hear us and understand our opinions and from what those opinions are derived.
They do not want to hear blah v blah recited back to them, they can handle that themselves. They do want to know what evidence did you uncover, what is going on in the field!!!
It is entertaining to listen to surveyors spout out court cites, but it's like listening to preachers spouting out biblical references, chapter and verse. Does it make one preacher better because he knows more scripture or is the better one the one that practices it consistently??
OK, that's my spew of the day...