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

Re: [infoguys-list] Re: rear ended

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 12 , May 13, 2009
      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 2 of 12 , May 13, 2009
        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 3 of 12 , May 13, 2009
          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 4 of 12 , May 13, 2009
            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 5 of 12 , May 14, 2009
              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 6 of 12 , May 15, 2009
                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 7 of 12 , May 16, 2009
                  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.