Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

rear ended

Expand Messages
  • Jurydoctor@aol.com
    $5 donated to american Lung association when you respond to this scenario. In the next email I will send the pictures to those who responded to this for an
    Message 1 of 12 , Nov 6, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      $5 donated to american Lung association when you respond to this scenario.
      In the next email I will send the pictures to those who responded to this for
      an addition $5 donation.
      thanks,
      amy


      The case involves a crash that occurred on I-75 in Kentucky in the lanes
      leading up to a construction site. Tom & Geri were in a minivan being driven by
      their son, Bob. They were rear-ended by another automobile. At the time of the
      collision, Geri was in the front seat sleeping w/her feet propped up on the
      dash board. She was wearing her seatbelt. Geri sustained a broken back that
      rendered her quadraplegic. her medical bills are around $350k at present.


      As a passenger is she doing anything wrong? If yes, what?


      Tom was laying in the back bench seat of the van sleeping, he was
      unrestrained

      Ky. does have a seatbelt law.


      Along w/some other minor injuries, Tom sustained a broken neck.

      Tom's done treating and his neck has healed after several surgeries and
      extensive medical care. His medical expenses are close to $400k

      Dr. Smith, defense expert, who is a biomechanical engineer, testifies that if
      he had been sitting up and restrained his injuries would have been less
      severe.

      He also argues essentially the same as Geri, that her injuries would have
      been the same as the driver, who only sustained cuts and bruises.



      Is it is "reasonable" to lay down during a road trip and be unrestrained?



      Plaintiff argues that their positioning doesn't really matter given the
      extent of damage to the car, they would have been injured severely regardless.
      (see pictures sent in next email)

      They also argue that Dr. Smith's opinion has no scientific foundation and no
      relevancy.

      **************AOL Search: Your one stop for directions, recipes and all other
      Holiday needs. Search Now.
      (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1212792382x1200798498/aol?redir=http://searchblog.aol.com/2008/11/04/happy-holidays-from
      -aol-search/?ncid=emlcntussear00000001)


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Camm Lounsbury
      I have a few arguments:   The injuries themselves may be irrelevant because the other driver should have been cited for following too closely and/or speed
      Message 2 of 12 , Nov 6, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        I have a few arguments:
         
        The injuries themselves may be irrelevant because the other driver should have been cited for following too closely and/or speed violations.  I would argue NONE of this would have happened had the other driver been far enough back and going slow enough to avoid collision.
         
        Geri's injuries probably would have been less severe had she been sitting up properly.  However, unless the law requires this, it may not make a difference.
         
        Tom may very well be out of luck.  He was neither sitting up, nor restrained; both of which may limit the other driver's liability.
         
        Finally, this may all be moot if there was highly extensive damage to the car.  Severe injury is almost unavoidable if the car is catastrophically damaged regardless of the use of restraints.  Can't wait to see the pictures!

        Camm Lounsbury
        PA Lic # 90-MD-2006
        335 East Main St.
        Bradford, PA 16701
        814-362-3571
        camm_lounsbury@...

        --- On Thu, 11/6/08, Jurydoctor@... <Jurydoctor@...> wrote:

        From: Jurydoctor@... <Jurydoctor@...>
        Subject: [infoguys-list] rear ended
        To: opinions-chapel@yahoogroups.com, Lets_Discuss_Anything@yahoogroups.com, legalinvestigation@yahoogroups.com
        Cc: thegreatestdebates@yahoogroups.com, forensic-debate@yahoogroups.com, infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Thursday, November 6, 2008, 9:56 AM






        $5 donated to american Lung association when you respond to this scenario.
        In the next email I will send the pictures to those who responded to this for
        an addition $5 donation.
        thanks,
        amy


        The case involves a crash that occurred on I-75 in Kentucky in the lanes
        leading up to a construction site. Tom & Geri were in a minivan being driven by
        their son, Bob. They were rear-ended by another automobile. At the time of the
        collision, Geri was in the front seat sleeping w/her feet propped up on the
        dash board. She was wearing her seatbelt. Geri sustained a broken back that
        rendered her quadraplegic. her medical bills are around $350k at present.


        As a passenger is she doing anything wrong? If yes, what?


        Tom was laying in the back bench seat of the van sleeping, he was
        unrestrained

        Ky. does have a seatbelt law.


        Along w/some other minor injuries, Tom sustained a broken neck.

        Tom's done treating and his neck has healed after several surgeries and
        extensive medical care. His medical expenses are close to $400k

        Dr. Smith, defense expert, who is a biomechanical engineer, testifies that if
        he had been sitting up and restrained his injuries would have been less
        severe.

        He also argues essentially the same as Geri, that her injuries would have
        been the same as the driver, who only sustained cuts and bruises.



        Is it is "reasonable" to lay down during a road trip and be unrestrained?



        Plaintiff argues that their positioning doesn't really matter given the
        extent of damage to the car, they would have been injured severely regardless.
        (see pictures sent in next email)

        They also argue that Dr. Smith's opinion has no scientific foundation and no
        relevancy.

        ************ **AOL Search: Your one stop for directions, recipes and all other
        Holiday needs. Search Now.
        (http://pr.atwola. com/promoclk/ 100000075x121279 2382x1200798498/ aol?redir= http://searchblo g.aol.com/ 2008/11/04/ happy-holidays- from
        -aol-search/ ?ncid=emlcntusse ar00000001)

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


















        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • suesarkis@aol.com
        Amy - What was the cause of the collision? Do we know? Geri should have had her feet on the floorboard where they belong. Thank God an airbag didn t deploy.
        Message 3 of 12 , Nov 6, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          Amy -

          What was the cause of the collision? Do we know?

          Geri should have had her feet on the floorboard where they belong. Thank
          God an airbag didn't deploy. I believe an expert medical doctor will be able
          to easily convince a jury that the position of her feet was contributory to
          her damages thereby creating a negligence per se for comparative fault
          purposes.

          You ask, "Is it is "reasonable" to lay down during a road trip and be
          unrestrained?". NO !!!! Anyway, REASONABLENESS doesn't matter. It is UNLAWFUL
          !!!!

          Since I never received a "next email" it is hard to really speculate without
          seeing the actual damages. However, if the driver was barely injured, I do
          not agree with the Plaintiff's position that they would have been severely
          damaged had they been seated in a normal fashion.

          Although damages are due, how much is determined by some relevant issues not
          being provided.



          Sincerely yours,
          Sue
          ________________________
          Sue Sarkis
          Sarkis Detective Agency

          (est. 1976)
          PI 6564
          _www.sarkispi.com_ (http://www.sarkispi.com/)

          1346 Ethel Street
          Glendale, CA 91207-1826
          818-242-2505
          818-246-3001 FAX

          "one Nation under God"

          If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read it in English, thank
          a military veteran

          **************AOL Search: Your one stop for directions, recipes and all other
          Holiday needs. Search Now.
          (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1212792382x1200798498/aol?redir=http://searchblog.aol.com/2008/11/04/happy-holidays-from
          -aol-search/?ncid=emlcntussear00000001)


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Dennis Forrester
          In regard to the recent post concerning the accident, I ll weigh in as follows..... I am an accident investiagtor with 8 years accident investigation
          Message 4 of 12 , Nov 7, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            In regard to the recent post concerning the accident, I'll weigh in as follows.....

            I am an accident investiagtor with 8 years accident investigation experience. I currently investigate serious injury/wrongful death claims for two of the largest american automotive manufacturers, as well as several automotive tire and carseat manufacturers. I am also a retired veterean paramedic of 20 years with a EMS provider which answered approx 65,000 911 calls per year.

            My thoughts are.....

            1. To the question of is Geri doing anything wrong? - Yes she is! Assuming that Geri is a competant adult, she should reasonably be aware that there is a proper way to sit in a seat. Obviously this does not include riding with your feet on the dash. Most owners manuals of vehicles equipped with passenger side airbags would warn of such dangers. I'm unsure whether or not the vehicle Geri was riding in had a passenger side airbag, but from the pictures it is apparant that if equipped it did not deploy.

            2. Looking at the photograph of the vehicle, it is apparant that the dash is relatively high in relation to the seat bottom. Assuming the seatback was at a near 90 degree (L shaped) angle, it appears as if Geri's body would have been in somewhat of a 45 degee angle (v shaped) position. I don't see where this position would be comfortable for any period of time, so I have to wonder, was Geri's seatback reclined a great degree???? From the photographs I was uanble to tell, but it appears that the seat was either damaged, broken, or reclined, as it is not viewable in comparison to the picture of the driver's seat. The angle of the seatback is imperative to evaluating the case because if it is reclined to a great degree, it would prevent the lap/shoulder belt from properly performing its job, as the lap/shoulder belt is dependent on the seatback to be in an upright (unreclined) position. Again, this is usually spelled out in an owners manual. If the seat was reclined, there is a significant amount of "travel" between the shoulders and/or torso and the shoulder portion of the belt. This "travel" area may have contributed to the given injury.

            3. The documentation (accompanying the photographs) indicates that the vehicle Geri was riding in, struck the rear of the vehicle in front of them, and then was rear-ended? In effect Geri's vehicle was "sandwiched" between two vehicles. Looking at the mechanism of injury, Geri was traveling at a given speed when the driver of her vehicle began to slow or react to the stopped traffic in front of him. He strikes the rear of the vehicle in front of him, causing Geri to be thrown forward at the speed the vehicle was traveling at moment of impact. Geri's body continues forward at that given speed until it impacts with the lap/shoulder belt which then "catches" her forward travel. (remember the comments about "travel" if the seatback was reclined?) If the seatback was upright, the "travel" was very minor. If the seatback was reclined the "travel" is of great significance! Regardless, when Geri's forward travel is halted by the seatbelt, her head continued forward at the given speed the vehicle was traveling at point of impact until such time that the spinal column (backbone) stopped it. Given the weight of the head in relation to the speed of the vehicle (even if the spped was 2-3 MPH) the damage to the spinal column (neck) is significant enough to cause a broken neck. Once the head is stopped by the backbone, it rebounds backward until it strikes the seatback/headrest. (Again remember seatback position?) Assuming the seatback is upright, this rebound distance could have been insignificant or very significant dependent on the distance. Regardless, the head now has been "whiplashed" again setting up the scenario for a broken neck. Then, the vehicle that Geri is riding in is struck frmo the rear, again tossing Geri into motion, but this time she goes backward (seat position?) until she strikes the seatback and is then thrown forward once again....If her neck was already injured, this could have worsend the (existing) injury or may ahve been the cause of the injury itself.

            4. In regard to Tom's injuries? No it is not reasonable for a person to "unrestrain themselves" and lay down for any reasons! First it is a violation of the State law which doesn't care if you're on a "road trip" or that "you were sleepy" and secondly its a violation of common sense! Tom should know as a "reasonable man" that it is dangerous to be unrestrained in a car. The Plaintiff's argument that their positioning doens't matter is insane! Any accident reconstructionist worth a dime could form a reasonable argument that not only is the positioning important, but could also argue that Tom very possibly was thrown forward into the front passenger seat compartment and thus contributed to Geri's injuries by his body weight being slammed into her neck at whatever the speed was....again even if 3-4 MPH, imagine getting struck by a 150 pound person! You've got to consider the incredible forces at work here! It is not uncommon for an accident such as this to cause a person to be ejected from a vehicle! Thus Tom's body could have been behaving as a "Missle" within the vehicle and struck Geri.

            5. As far as Dr. Smith's opinion not having scientific foundation and relevancy????? You've got to be kidding me! Go to you tube and type in "crash dummy" and watch how body's react in various collisions and then tell me Dr. Smith's opinion isn't relevant!

            Lastly, if you want a referral to a great accident reconstructionist who can determine all of the facts and opinions stated above, and much much more including 3-D video of the accident scene, contact me!
            Thanks,

            Dennis Forrester
            GA PI PDE046467
            forrester@...




            ----- Original Message -----
            From: Jurydoctor@...
            To: opinions-chapel@yahoogroups.com ; Lets_Discuss_Anything@yahoogroups.com ; legalinvestigation@yahoogroups.com
            Cc: thegreatestdebates@yahoogroups.com ; forensic-debate@yahoogroups.com ; infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 9:56 AM
            Subject: [infoguys-list] rear ended


            $5 donated to american Lung association when you respond to this scenario.
            In the next email I will send the pictures to those who responded to this for
            an addition $5 donation.
            thanks,
            amy


            The case involves a crash that occurred on I-75 in Kentucky in the lanes
            leading up to a construction site. Tom & Geri were in a minivan being driven by
            their son, Bob. They were rear-ended by another automobile. At the time of the
            collision, Geri was in the front seat sleeping w/her feet propped up on the
            dash board. She was wearing her seatbelt. Geri sustained a broken back that
            rendered her quadraplegic. her medical bills are around $350k at present.


            As a passenger is she doing anything wrong? If yes, what?


            Tom was laying in the back bench seat of the van sleeping, he was
            unrestrained

            Ky. does have a seatbelt law.


            Along w/some other minor injuries, Tom sustained a broken neck.

            Tom's done treating and his neck has healed after several surgeries and
            extensive medical care. His medical expenses are close to $400k

            Dr. Smith, defense expert, who is a biomechanical engineer, testifies that if
            he had been sitting up and restrained his injuries would have been less
            severe.

            He also argues essentially the same as Geri, that her injuries would have
            been the same as the driver, who only sustained cuts and bruises.



            Is it is "reasonable" to lay down during a road trip and be unrestrained?



            Plaintiff argues that their positioning doesn't really matter given the
            extent of damage to the car, they would have been injured severely regardless.
            (see pictures sent in next email)

            They also argue that Dr. Smith's opinion has no scientific foundation and no
            relevancy.

            **************AOL Search: Your one stop for directions, recipes and all other
            Holiday needs. Search Now.
            (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1212792382x1200798498/aol?redir=http://searchblog.aol.com/2008/11/04/happy-holidays-from
            -aol-search/?ncid=emlcntussear00000001)

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Jurydoctor@aol.com
            $10 worth of coupons for each opinion to the Schiff Liver center. I need your opinions ASAP, please. Thanks, Amy Plaintiff s version- Plaintiff driving with
            Message 5 of 12 , May 13, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              $10 worth of coupons for each opinion to the Schiff Liver center. I need
              your opinions ASAP, please.
              Thanks,
              Amy

              Plaintiff's version- Plaintiff driving with wife on I-95 just north of
              the Florida border on a dry road and was rear ended three times by a
              semi-truck. After the accident investigation was complete, the Plaintiffs drove
              from the scene to home in Melbourne, Florida where he sought medical
              attention. Plaintiff's injuries resulted in a three level cervical/neck fusion and
              had a good recovery.


              Problem areas for the plaintiff includes the discrepancy between the
              plaintiff's version of events (primary problem), the lack of treatment at the
              scene, the good recovery, and the fact the Defendant hired an accident
              reconstruction expert to testify that the property damage could not have been
              caused by the Defendant's semi-truck in the manner described by the
              plaintiffs.




              Defendant's version- Defendant was driving on I-95 just north of the
              Florida border during a rain storm when he attempted to pass the plaintiff's
              vehicle on the left. When the Defendant attempted to pull back into the
              right lane he felt a jolt. The right front quarter of his tractor impacted the
              left rear quarter of the plaintiff's car. The Defendant's medical expert
              will testify that Plaintiff's injuries and cervical fusion was not caused
              by this impact.

              The Defendant's problem areas are the existence of property damage to the
              rear of the Plaintiff's vehicle, the Defendant/driver may not be present to
              testify, and the Defendant's medical expert examined the Plaintiff but did
              not review any medical records.




              **************Dell Mini Netbooks: Great deals starting at $299 after
              instant savings!
              (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221972443x1201442012/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fad.doubleclick.net%2Fclk%3B214819441%3B36680237%3Bi)


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • suesarkis@aol.com
              Amy - #1 Problem areas for the plaintiff includes the discrepancy between the plaintiff s version of events (primary problem), ... way. How relevant the
              Message 6 of 12 , May 13, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                Amy -

                #1 Problem areas for the plaintiff includes the discrepancy between the
                plaintiff's version of events (primary problem),

                ---- That's typical since no two people see the same accident the same
                way. How relevant the discrepancies are depend upon what they are, something
                we are not being told.

                #2 --the lack of treatment at the scene

                ---- So what? It takes time for whiplash to occur. Shoot, I was
                sideswiped by a 18 wheeler in 1970 on March 26th. CHP's witnessed the accident
                and stayed with me while calling others to have driver stopped and arrested.
                After some time they agreed with me that I appeared and seemed just fine.
                April 3rd hospitalized, paralyzed from the waist down. The first of many
                operations did not occur until August 4th.

                #3 --- the good recovery

                ----- That does not mitigate the incident, its effects and the future P&S
                the plaintiff WILL suffer

                # --- the fact the Defendant hired an accident reconstruction expert to
                testify that the property damage could not have been caused by the
                Defendant's semi-truck in the manner described by the
                plaintiffs.

                ----- Again, not enough information to intelligently opine about.

                Sue
                **************Dell Mini Netbooks: Great deals starting at $299 after
                instant savings!
                (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221972443x1201442012/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fad.doubleclick.net%2Fclk%3B214819441%3B36680237%3Bi)


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Jurydoctor@aol.com
                that is very important!! what do you need to know in order to make an opinion? thanks, amy In a message dated 5/13/2009 5:57:49 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
                Message 7 of 12 , May 13, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  that is very important!! what do you need to know in order to make an
                  opinion?
                  thanks,
                  amy

                  In a message dated 5/13/2009 5:57:49 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
                  infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com writes:

                  Again, not enough information to intelligently opine about.

                  Sue




                  **************Dell Mini Netbooks: Great deals starting at $299 after
                  instant savings!
                  (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221972443x1201442012/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fad.doubleclick.net%2Fclk%3B214819441%3B36680237%3Bi)


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Dennis Forrester
                  Amy, As a former veteran paramedic (20 years experience) and a current accident investigator (8 years experience) I agree that there is a tremendous amount of
                  Message 8 of 12 , May 13, 2009
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Amy,

                    As a former veteran paramedic (20 years experience) and a current accident investigator (8 years experience) I agree that there is a tremendous amount of information that is lacking that would assist in forming an "logical opinion" about the accident. With the limited information provided, I don't see either side being correct in the way it happened. The plaintiff seems to be saying he/she was driving along minding his/her own business when the tractor trailer just slammed into the back of the plaintiff's vehicle without any reason in the world. On the other hand, the defendants story doesn't add up either.....he was trying to pass the plaintiff (did he indeed pass the plaintiff or abort the pass) then as he pulled back into the right lane the front end of the tractor hit the rear end of the plaintiff's vehicle (indicates he aborted the pass).

                    Here's what I'd like to see answered:

                    What precipitated the impact between the two vehicles according to the plaintiff? (Sudden change in speed? Braking? Poor visibility?, etc) If we're to qualify the plaintiff's version, something had to have caused the defendant to strike the plaintiff's vehicle. It is possible, but not probable that the tractor trailer (TT) just struck the rear of the plaintiff's vehicle without any precipitating event (unless driver was distracted or fell asleep).

                    Are there any photo's of either vehicle? Are the photo's consistent with either the plaintiff or defendants version?

                    Were any photo's taken of the scene? Any tire marks? Scrapes? Gouges?, etc.

                    What was the interior damage to the plaintiff vehicle? Was the seatback damaged (bent/broken)? Was the headrest damaged? Was the headrest properly positioned for the driver's height? Was the plaintiff wearing a lap/shoulder belt (correctly). How high on the B post was the shoulder belt positioned in relation to the plaintiff's height? Was there steering wheel damage (bent)? Was there windshield damage (Spiderweb, faceprint)? Was there driver side dash damage? Was there pedal damage? All of these give us an idea of the "travel" that the plaintiff's body sustained post-impact, thus provides "telling" signs of his/her injuries.

                    What was the point of rest position of the vehicles? Upright? upside down? sideways? Was he able to bring the vehicle to a controlled stop? or did the vehicle come to rest by itself?

                    Where was the vertebra(e) damaged? On the back side (posterior) or the sides (lateral). Again, this tells us which way the plaintiff's head "bobbed" and provides us with a lot of information regarding the dynamics of the vehicle movement pre/post impact.

                    It is plausible to have a "stacked" impact (3 separate impacts) in a rapid deceleration accident. The plaintiff is struck initially at a significant speed difference, which propels the vehicle forward (Away from striking vehicle), the plaintiff brakes suddenly, the defendants vehicle is still moving fast and strikes the plaintiff again. This is feasible and could easily cause cervical spine damage (but I could argue inappropriate use/adjustment of headrest and/or seatbelt).

                    IF we're to believe the defendant's version, the significant weight difference between the TT and vehicle would have caused the plaintiff's vehicle to rotate counter clockwise, moving into a lateral "T" type position, likely in front of the TT. (Same concept as a P.I.T. maneuver).

                    Did EMS (ambulance) respond to scene? Did plaintiff refuse treatment? Did plaintiff have underlying medical problems? What is plaintiff's age, weight, height?

                    Where is the plaintiff's vehicle now? How old is it? Has it been repaired or totaled? Has anyone attempted to download the CDR (black box) from it? Was the TT equipped with black box or GPS? Does the GPS track the TT's route, etc? (Tells us overall speed between point A and B, allows us to "assume" what his overall driving speed habits were.

                    There is so much that needs to be considered......

                    I'm in Georgia, and would be happy to evaluate the entire case at a nominal cost. I can provide full reconstruction and surveys and 3-D animation of the collision, if needed.

                    Give me a call if you would like to discuss further.

                    Thanks,

                    Dennis Forrester
                    GA PI PDE046467
                    770-653-5568
                    forrester@...



                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: Jurydoctor@...
                    To: opinions-chapel@yahoogroups.com ; forensic-debate@yahoogroups.com ; infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 3:16 PM
                    Subject: [infoguys-list] Re: rear ended





                    $10 worth of coupons for each opinion to the Schiff Liver center. I need
                    your opinions ASAP, please.
                    Thanks,
                    Amy

                    Plaintiff's version- Plaintiff driving with wife on I-95 just north of
                    the Florida border on a dry road and was rear ended three times by a
                    semi-truck. After the accident investigation was complete, the Plaintiffs drove
                    from the scene to home in Melbourne, Florida where he sought medical
                    attention. Plaintiff's injuries resulted in a three level cervical/neck fusion and
                    had a good recovery.


                    Problem areas for the plaintiff includes the discrepancy between the
                    plaintiff's version of events (primary problem), the lack of treatment at the
                    scene, the good recovery, and the fact the Defendant hired an accident
                    reconstruction expert to testify that the property damage could not have been
                    caused by the Defendant's semi-truck in the manner described by the
                    plaintiffs.



                    Defendant's version- Defendant was driving on I-95 just north of the
                    Florida border during a rain storm when he attempted to pass the plaintiff's
                    vehicle on the left. When the Defendant attempted to pull back into the
                    right lane he felt a jolt. The right front quarter of his tractor impacted the
                    left rear quarter of the plaintiff's car. The Defendant's medical expert
                    will testify that Plaintiff's injuries and cervical fusion was not caused
                    by this impact.

                    The Defendant's problem areas are the existence of property damage to the
                    rear of the Plaintiff's vehicle, the Defendant/driver may not be present to
                    testify, and the Defendant's medical expert examined the Plaintiff but did
                    not review any medical records.


                    **************Dell Mini Netbooks: Great deals starting at $299 after
                    instant savings!
                    (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221972443x1201442012/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fad.doubleclick.net%2Fclk%3B214819441%3B36680237%3Bi)

                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • suesarkis@aol.com
                    In a message dated 5/13/2009 3:11:37 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, Jurydoctor@aol.com writes: that is very important!! what do you need to know in order to make
                    Message 9 of 12 , May 13, 2009
                    • 0 Attachment
                      In a message dated 5/13/2009 3:11:37 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
                      Jurydoctor@... writes:

                      that is very important!! what do you need to know in order to make an
                      opinion?



                      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

                      Amy -


                      How did the plaintiff describe the accident and the events leading up to
                      it?


                      What does the accident reconstructionist say?

                      Most important of all, who is the accident reconstructionist?


                      Sue
                      **************Dell Mini Netbooks: Great deals starting at $299 after
                      instant savings!
                      (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222627952x1201458914/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fad.doubleclick.net%2Fclk%3B214819460%3B36680227%3Bi)


                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Jurydoctor@aol.com
                      I will try and find the answers to these questions... _________________________ How did the plaintiff describe the accident and the events leading up to it?
                      Message 10 of 12 , May 14, 2009
                      • 0 Attachment
                        I will try and find the answers to these questions...
                        _________________________


                        How did the plaintiff describe the accident and the events leading up to
                        it?


                        What does the accident reconstructionist say?

                        Most important of all, who is the accident reconstructionist?





                        ____________________________
                        As a former veteran paramedic (20 years experience) and a current accident
                        investigator (8 years experience) I agree that there is a tremendous amount
                        of information that is lacking that would assist in forming an "logical
                        opinion" about the accident. With the limited information provided, I don't
                        see either side being correct in the way it happened. The plaintiff seems to
                        be saying he/she was driving along minding his/her own business when the
                        tractor trailer just slammed into the back of the plaintiff's vehicle
                        without any reason in the world. On the other hand, the defendants story doesn't
                        add up either.....he was trying to pass the plaintiff (did he indeed pass
                        the plaintiff or abort the pass) then as he pulled back into the right lane
                        the front end of the tractor hit the rear end of the plaintiff's vehicle
                        (indicates he aborted the pass).

                        Here's what I'd like to see answered:

                        What precipitated the impact between the two vehicles according to the
                        plaintiff? (Sudden change in speed? Braking? Poor visibility?, etc) If we're
                        to qualify the plaintiff's version, something had to have caused the
                        defendant to strike the plaintiff's vehicle. It is possible, but not probable that
                        the tractor trailer (TT) just struck the rear of the plaintiff's vehicle
                        without any precipitating event (unless driver was distracted or fell
                        asleep).

                        Are there any photo's of either vehicle? Are the photo's consistent with
                        either the plaintiff or defendants version?

                        Were any photo's taken of the scene? Any tire marks? Scrapes? Gouges?,
                        etc.

                        What was the interior damage to the plaintiff vehicle? Was the seatback
                        damaged (bent/broken)? Was the headrest damaged? Was the headrest properly
                        positioned for the driver's height? Was the plaintiff wearing a lap/shoulder
                        belt (correctly). How high on the B post was the shoulder belt positioned
                        in relation to the plaintiff's height? Was there steering wheel damage
                        (bent)? Was there windshield damage (Spiderweb, faceprint)? Was there driver
                        side dash damage? Was there pedal damage? All of these give us an idea of the
                        "travel" that the plaintiff's body sustained post-impact, thus provides
                        "telling" signs of his/her injuries.

                        What was the point of rest position of the vehicles? Upright? upside down?
                        sideways? Was he able to bring the vehicle to a controlled stop? or did
                        the vehicle come to rest by itself?

                        Where was the vertebra(e) damaged? On the back side (posterior) or the
                        sides (lateral). Again, this tells us which way the plaintiff's head "bobbed"
                        and provides us with a lot of information regarding the dynamics of the
                        vehicle movement pre/post impact.

                        It is plausible to have a "stacked" impact (3 separate impacts) in a rapid
                        deceleration accident. The plaintiff is struck initially at a significant
                        speed difference, which propels the vehicle forward (Away from striking
                        vehicle), the plaintiff brakes suddenly, the defendants vehicle is still
                        moving fast and strikes the plaintiff again. This is feasible and could easily
                        cause cervical spine damage (but I could argue inappropriate use/adjustment
                        of headrest and/or seatbelt).

                        IF we're to believe the defendant's version, the significant weight
                        difference between the TT and vehicle would have caused the plaintiff's vehicle
                        to rotate counter clockwise, moving into a lateral "T" type position, likely
                        in front of the TT. (Same concept as a P.I.T. maneuver).

                        Did EMS (ambulance) respond to scene? Did plaintiff refuse treatment? Did
                        plaintiff have underlying medical problems? What is plaintiff's age,
                        weight, height?

                        Where is the plaintiff's vehicle now? How old is it? Has it been repaired
                        or totaled? Has anyone attempted to download the CDR (black box) from it?
                        Was the TT equipped with black box or GPS? Does the GPS track the TT's
                        route, etc? (Tells us overall speed between point A and B, allows us to "assume"
                        what his overall driving speed habits were.
                        _________________________________


                        Well let's see...

                        I'd need to hear more about the alleged discrepancies in the plaintiff's
                        version of events I think. (The nature and degree, you might say.)

                        Then we go back to questions:

                        Does the on-site investigator's report - prepared immediately following
                        the accident - tend to support or refute plaintiff's claim as to the sequence
                        of events?

                        Lastly, what's the defense expert's conclusion as to the sequence of
                        events?

                        Why did the medical expert neglect to review medical history? In a way it
                        makes sense that the expert didn't, the body being "best evidence" at the
                        time, but failing to review medical history...it just seems sloppy. (This
                        issue may or may not break the case - needs more of an explanation I would
                        say.)

                        ____________________________________________________________________




                        In a message dated 5/13/2009


                        First I’d have to ask just how great a discrepancy is there between (for
                        example) the plaintiff’s version of events and the conclusions reached
                        following the on-scene investigation. Adrenalin and simple panic response would
                        account for *some* inconsistencies I would think, but surely not all of
                        them. Then too, what does the reconstructionist think the likely sequence of
                        events was? Not to turn this into a battle of experts, but it certainly
                        wouldn’t hurt to hear from both sides.
                        Is the defendant denying *any* contact at all with the plaintiff’s
                        vehicle? (The wording there seemed a bit odd.) If so, it would appear that that
                        particular hog won’t wash.
                        That’s all I have for the moment. More information would be helpful.








                        __________________________________
                        **************Dell Mini Netbooks: Great deals starting at $299 after
                        instant savings!
                        (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222627952x1201458914/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fad.doubleclick.net%2Fclk%3B214819460%3B36680227%3Bi)


                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • War Monger
                        why do not u just pay the 5dollars and get the report?? ... From: Jurydoctor@aol.com Subject: [infoguys-list] rear ended To: Date:
                        Message 11 of 12 , May 15, 2009
                        • 0 Attachment
                          why do not u just pay the 5dollars and get the report??

                          -------EDDIE--------

                          --- On Thu, 5/14/09, Jurydoctor@... <Jurydoctor@...> wrote:


                          From: Jurydoctor@... <Jurydoctor@...>
                          Subject: [infoguys-list] rear ended
                          To:
                          Date: Thursday, May 14, 2009, 7:34 PM









                          I will try and find the answers to these questions...
                          ____________ _________ ____

                          How did the plaintiff describe the accident and the events leading up to
                          it?

                          What does the accident reconstructionist say?

                          Most important of all, who is the accident reconstructionist?

                          ____________ _________ _______
                          As a former veteran paramedic (20 years experience) and a current accident
                          investigator (8 years experience) I agree that there is a tremendous amount
                          of information that is lacking that would assist in forming an "logical
                          opinion" about the accident. With the limited information provided, I don't
                          see either side being correct in the way it happened. The plaintiff seems to
                          be saying he/she was driving along minding his/her own business when the
                          tractor trailer just slammed into the back of the plaintiff's vehicle
                          without any reason in the world. On the other hand, the defendants story doesn't
                          add up either.....he was trying to pass the plaintiff (did he indeed pass
                          the plaintiff or abort the pass) then as he pulled back into the right lane
                          the front end of the tractor hit the rear end of the plaintiff's vehicle
                          (indicates he aborted the pass).

                          Here's what I'd like to see answered:

                          What precipitated the impact between the two vehicles according to the
                          plaintiff? (Sudden change in speed? Braking? Poor visibility?, etc) If we're
                          to qualify the plaintiff's version, something had to have caused the
                          defendant to strike the plaintiff's vehicle. It is possible, but not probable that
                          the tractor trailer (TT) just struck the rear of the plaintiff's vehicle
                          without any precipitating event (unless driver was distracted or fell
                          asleep).

                          Are there any photo's of either vehicle? Are the photo's consistent with
                          either the plaintiff or defendants version?

                          Were any photo's taken of the scene? Any tire marks? Scrapes? Gouges?,
                          etc.

                          What was the interior damage to the plaintiff vehicle? Was the seatback
                          damaged (bent/broken) ? Was the headrest damaged? Was the headrest properly
                          positioned for the driver's height? Was the plaintiff wearing a lap/shoulder
                          belt (correctly). How high on the B post was the shoulder belt positioned
                          in relation to the plaintiff's height? Was there steering wheel damage
                          (bent)? Was there windshield damage (Spiderweb, faceprint)? Was there driver
                          side dash damage? Was there pedal damage? All of these give us an idea of the
                          "travel" that the plaintiff's body sustained post-impact, thus provides
                          "telling" signs of his/her injuries.

                          What was the point of rest position of the vehicles? Upright? upside down?
                          sideways? Was he able to bring the vehicle to a controlled stop? or did
                          the vehicle come to rest by itself?

                          Where was the vertebra(e) damaged? On the back side (posterior) or the
                          sides (lateral). Again, this tells us which way the plaintiff's head "bobbed"
                          and provides us with a lot of information regarding the dynamics of the
                          vehicle movement pre/post impact.

                          It is plausible to have a "stacked" impact (3 separate impacts) in a rapid
                          deceleration accident. The plaintiff is struck initially at a significant
                          speed difference, which propels the vehicle forward (Away from striking
                          vehicle), the plaintiff brakes suddenly, the defendants vehicle is still
                          moving fast and strikes the plaintiff again. This is feasible and could easily
                          cause cervical spine damage (but I could argue inappropriate use/adjustment
                          of headrest and/or seatbelt).

                          IF we're to believe the defendant's version, the significant weight
                          difference between the TT and vehicle would have caused the plaintiff's vehicle
                          to rotate counter clockwise, moving into a lateral "T" type position, likely
                          in front of the TT. (Same concept as a P.I.T. maneuver).

                          Did EMS (ambulance) respond to scene? Did plaintiff refuse treatment? Did
                          plaintiff have underlying medical problems? What is plaintiff's age,
                          weight, height?

                          Where is the plaintiff's vehicle now? How old is it? Has it been repaired
                          or totaled? Has anyone attempted to download the CDR (black box) from it?
                          Was the TT equipped with black box or GPS? Does the GPS track the TT's
                          route, etc? (Tells us overall speed between point A and B, allows us to "assume"
                          what his overall driving speed habits were.
                          ____________ _________ _________ ___


                          Well let's see...

                          I'd need to hear more about the alleged discrepancies in the plaintiff's
                          version of events I think. (The nature and degree, you might say.)

                          Then we go back to questions:

                          Does the on-site investigator' s report - prepared immediately following
                          the accident - tend to support or refute plaintiff's claim as to the sequence
                          of events?

                          Lastly, what's the defense expert's conclusion as to the sequence of
                          events?

                          Why did the medical expert neglect to review medical history? In a way it
                          makes sense that the expert didn't, the body being "best evidence" at the
                          time, but failing to review medical history...it just seems sloppy. (This
                          issue may or may not break the case - needs more of an explanation I would
                          say.)

                          ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _

                          In a message dated 5/13/2009

                          First I’d have to ask just how great a discrepancy is there between (for
                          example) the plaintiff’s version of events and the conclusions reached
                          following the on-scene investigation. Adrenalin and simple panic response would
                          account for *some* inconsistencies I would think, but surely not all of
                          them. Then too, what does the reconstructionist think the likely sequence of
                          events was? Not to turn this into a battle of experts, but it certainly
                          wouldn’t hurt to hear from both sides.
                          Is the defendant denying *any* contact at all with the plaintiff’s
                          vehicle? (The wording there seemed a bit odd.) If so, it would appear that that
                          particular hog won’t wash.
                          That’s all I have for the moment. More information would be helpful.

                          ____________ _________ _________ ____
                          ************ **Dell Mini Netbooks: Great deals starting at $299 after
                          instant savings!
                          (http://pr.atwola com/promoclk/ 100126575x122262 7952x1201458914/ aol?redir= http:%2F% 2Fad.doubleclick .net%2Fclk% 3B214819460% 3B36680227% 3Bi)

                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



















                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • suesarkis@aol.com
                          In a message dated 5/16/2009 11:08:00 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, ejmg16@yahoo.com writes: why do not u just pay the 5dollars and get the report?? ... Eddie
                          Message 12 of 12 , May 16, 2009
                          • 0 Attachment
                            In a message dated 5/16/2009 11:08:00 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
                            ejmg16@... writes:

                            why do not u just pay the 5dollars and get the report??

                            -------EDDIE--------


                            Eddie -

                            Pay $5 to get WHAT REPORT? Also, please identify yourself with a complete
                            and full signature line.


                            Thank you.


                            Sincerely yours,
                            Sue
                            ________________________
                            Sue Sarkis
                            Sarkis Detective Agency


                            (est. 1976)
                            PI 6564
                            _www.sarkispi.com_ (http://www.sarkispi.com/)

                            1346 Ethel Street
                            Glendale, CA 91207-1826
                            818-242-2505


                            "one Nation under God" and "in GOD we TRUST"

                            If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read it in English,
                            thank a military veteran
                            **************An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy
                            Steps!
                            (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222377005x1201454319/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=62&bcd=May
                            Excfooter51609NO62)


                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.