 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Strange v. Glascock1/26/2005
f the passing maneuver.
Finally, plaintiff argues the animations inaccurately depict the point at which defendant engaged his brakes. Defendant testified he did not engage his brakes until fifteen to eighteen feet before the collision with plaintiff's vehicle. However, the animation shows defendant began to brake at one hundred-forty-four feet before collision. The expert stated he believes the braking began at one hundred-forty-four feet based on accident reconstruction principles, working backwards from the point of collision. We conclude that the expert's testimony as to accident reconstruction principles provides sufficient foundation for the depiction of the defendant's braking, even though the depiction is inconsistent with defendant's testimony. Further, we find this to not be a material part of the animation.
The expert witness sufficiently authenticated the animations by demonstrating that he knew about the facts represented in the animations and upon demonstrating this knowledge he affirmed that the animations correctly and adequately portrayed these facts. See Hutchison, 514 N.W.2d at 890 (Iowa 1994). Proper foundation for admission was laid in this case.
Plaintiff further argues that we should apply a heightened standard for the admission of this evidence. In Hutchison the court noted that:
A somewhat more troublesome problem is presented by posed or artificially reconstructed scenes, in which people, automobiles, and other objects are placed so as to conform to the descriptions of the original crime or collision given by the witness. When the posed photographs go no further than to portray the positions of persons and objects as reflected in the undisputed testimony, their admission has long been generally approved. Frequently, however, a posed photograph will portray only the version of the facts supported by the testimony of the proponent's witness. The dangers inherent in this situation, i.e., the tendency of the photographs unduly to emphasize certain testimony and the possibility that the jury may confuse one party's reconstruction with objective fact, have led some courts to exclude photographs of this type.
Id.
We find that the "troublesome problem" suggested in Hutchison is not present in this case. The question of whether defendant was signaling a left turn was the most relevant disputed fact. One version showed plaintiff using her turn signal to signal the turn. The other showed she did not signal the turn. The other discrepancies perceived by the plaintiff were properly left to be resolved through extensive cross-examination and presentation of contrary evidence. See Williams v. Hedican, 561 N.W.2d 817, 832 (Iowa 1997). "Allowing extensive cross-examination so as to elicit the expert's assumptions and test the expert's data may be a more appropriate method of enabling the jury to perform its function than excluding information that passes the tests of relevancy and prejudice." Id. (citing 3 Jack B. Weinstein & Margaret A. Berger, Weinstein's Evidence 703 , at 703-42 (1994)). "We have every confidence in a jury's ability to listen to all the evidence and reach a reasoned verdict based on proper instructions from the court." Id. Further, this court has viewed the particular animations admitted by the district court. The animations are short renditions of what the expert believed to be the sequence of the events. They show no more than graphic designs of a highway and two cars moving on it. They are not such that they would cause the jury to confuse the animations with objective fact nor are they such as would cause the jury to give them more weight than the testimony of the respective witnesses. We affirm on this i
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.
|
|