 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Strange v. Glascock1/26/2005
Plaintiff-appellant filed suit claiming defendant-appellee was negligent and that she was injured following a motor vehicle accident. AFFIRMED.
This case arose from a motor vehicle accident in Warren County, Iowa. The cars that plaintiff-appellant, Karen Strange, and defendant-appellee, Lloyd Glascock, were driving collided when defendant passed plaintiff as she was attempting a left turn into a farm field driveway. Plaintiff filed suit claiming defendant was negligent and that she was injured in the collision. A jury found plaintiff was 50.5 percent at fault in the accident and her claim was dismissed. On appeal plaintiff claims that (1) the district court should not have admitted defendant expert witness's computerized depictions of the accident sequence, and (2) the district court should not have admitted certain evidence that plaintiff claims went to her truthfulness. We affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
Plaintiff was traveling east on a two-lane portion of Highway 92. Realizing that she needed to return home to pick up an item, she began the process of turning around. To turn around she intended to make a left turn into a farm field entrance. There was conflicting testimony as to whether or not plaintiff signaled that she was making a left turn. Plaintiff testified she did. Defendant testified she did not. As defendant approached the plaintiff's slow-moving vehicle, he moved into the left lane (the lane for oncoming traffic, which was empty) to pass. Near the time that defendant was moving into the left lane, plaintiff began to make a left turn into the farm field entrance. A "T-bone" collision resulted.
Prior to trial, plaintiff filed two motions in limine dealing with evidentiary issues that are the subject of this appeal. First, plaintiff sought to exclude defendant-expert's computer-animated recreations of the accident sequence. Plaintiff argued the animations were not fair and accurate presentations of the events. The animations show a number of views of how the expert thought the accident occurred. There are two aerial view animations, which are identical, except one shows plaintiff engaged her turn signal, and one shows she did not. There are also two animations depicting defendant's point of view looking through his windshield, which are also identical except one shows plaintiff engaged her turn signal, and one shows she did not. Finally, there is one view that shows what the expert believed plaintiff would have seen in her windshield rearview mirror and one showing her driver's side rearview mirror. The district court determined it would rule on the admissibility of the animations at the time of their introduction. At introduction of the exhibit the district court admitted the animations, finding sufficient foundation for their admission. Defendant's expert witness, a professional engineer experienced in accident reconstruction, used the animations to explain and illustrate his testimony as to how he thought the accident occurred.
The second motion in limine by plaintiff sought to exclude the testimony of two neuropsychologists as to whether the plaintiff was malingering in neuropsychology examinations administered to her. Plaintiff initially retained a neuropsychologist to examine her to determine whether she suffered a traumatic brain injury in the accident. The defense also retained a neuropsychologist to examine plaintiff. An examination done by each expert revealed that plaintiff was malingering, that is plaintiff was not putting forth her best effort in the neuropsychology tests apparently in an effort to magnify her symptoms. Further, defendant sought to solicit testimony from the neuropsychologists as to whether a person
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Iowa Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|