 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Strange v. Glascock1/26/2005
es the animations inaccurately depict when plaintiff's brake lights were illuminated. Second, plaintiff argues the animations inaccurately depict the point at which defendant initiated his passing maneuver. Finally, plaintiff argues the animations inaccurately depict the point at which defendant engaged his brakes.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the animations in this case. The animations were prepared by an experienced expert in the field of accident reconstruction based on numerous factors. The animations incorporated evidence compiled by the Iowa State Patrol, including field measurements, eyewitness statements, tire marks, and photographs; crush damage to the vehicles used to determine speeds, the point of impact, and angles of departure; witness testimony; information obtained by the expert's field visits; and aerial photographs of the scene and topography. Additionally, the animations were displayed for defendant who, after viewing the animations, asserted they were a fair and accurate depiction of the accident.
Though some testimony is contrary to other testimony there is evidence in the record to support each element of the expert witness's depiction of the auto accident in the animations. Defendant's testimony was conflicting regarding when he saw the brake lights of plaintiff's vehicle. In his deposition testimony defendant stated he did not see plaintiff's brake lights illuminated, then in response to questions during cross-examination at trial defendant stated that he saw brake lights but could not say at what distance, then stated that he saw brake lights "at several hundred feet behind" plaintiff, and later stated that he saw plaintiff's brake lights at approximately two hundred feet behind the plaintiff.
In regards to the brake lights, the defense expert testified that he could not be certain at which point the defendant saw brake lights; this statement by the expert is consistent with the inconsistent testimony of defendant as to the brake lights. Furthermore, we do not believe the animations' lack of brake lights at a two hundred foot distance is a material inaccuracy of the animation. The testimony was inconsistent, and we do not find that brake lights were critical to the accident, as they simply would have put defendant on notice that the plaintiff was slowing down, but would not have put defendant on notice that plaintiff was going to make a left turn.
The second inaccuracy alleged by plaintiff is the animation inaccurately depicts the point at which defendant initiated his passing maneuver. The expert testified that in the animation the passing maneuver begins while defendant is three hundred feet behind plaintiff, and plaintiff argues that defendant's testimony indicates the passing maneuver was really initiated when defendant was less than one hundred-seventy feet from plaintiff. Plaintiff argues that defendant indicated, in depositions and accident reports, that he only passed upon realizing he could not stop behind plaintiff's slow-moving vehicle. Thus, plaintiff asserts the passing maneuver must have been initiated when defendant was within one hundred-seventy feet of plaintiff's vehicle because defendant's expert testified one hundred-seventy feet was the stopping distance that defendant needed under the conditions. However, in his testimony at trial defendant was adamant that his previous statements were not intended to indicate he only passed after realizing he could not stop in time. Defendant testified that he passed upon determining plaintiff was moving slowly and there was no oncoming traffic that would have prevented passing. We determine this testimony provided proper foundation for the animations' depiction o
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.
|
|