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

Re: rear ended-answers

Expand Messages
  • Jurydoctor@aol.com
    In a message dated 5/18/2009 11:58:17 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, How did the plaintiff describe the accident and the events leading up to it? We were
    Message 1 of 3 , May 18, 2009
      In a message dated 5/18/2009 11:58:17 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,


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

      "We were southbound on I-95. We're in the right-hand lane. I had the
      cruise control set at 72 mph. It had just stopped raining, and the sun was
      beginning to come out. The interstate was clear of traffic, for the most
      part. In front of me there were no cars. My wife was asleep. And just out
      of the blue there was a first impact that struck us. The impact was
      directly behind the car. As soon as that even registered, there was a second
      impact, again directly to the rear of the car. All I could see in the rearview
      mirror was the chrome grille of the tractor-trailer. And as soon as that
      had registered, there was a third and final impact, and I remember that my
      head was jerked back. It had been jerked back each time, but I remember
      it was jerked back the third time and I remember- there being a twinge in my
      neck." "And instinctively my reaction was to get us out of the situation
      as quickly as I could. So I stepped on the gas and I immediately veered off
      the side of the road onto the shoulder. The tractor-trailer continued in
      our lane, continued going strait, didn't stop.... I caught up to the
      tractor-trailer. I noticed that his arm is against the window, and I can see
      his hand was up against his ear, and I can see that he's got a cell phone..."

      The plaintiff's wife will say the first impact woke her, but otherwise her
      version is the same.

      The investigating officer will only be able to testify that in his view
      the damage correlated with the plaintiff's version of events.

      What does the accident reconstructionist say?


      The AR opinions are as follows:

      -There was probably a contact between the two vehicles, which later in the
      deposition changes to "possibly", only based on the testimony, but not on
      any visible damage;

      -"Based on the physical evidence, I don't believe there is any way this
      truck struck this car directly from the rear in a full strke while in its
      lane.";
      => This is a low speed impact, regardless of how it occured, probably
      in the ballpark of 5 mph difference in speeds;
      => "Looking at exhibit F, at the damage pattern on the back of the
      plaintiff's vehicle (Elantra), the unit was struck obviously by something flush
      or for the most of the width of the vehicle. It is a little deeper on the
      righ-hand side. In looking specifically at picture 2 of exhibit F, I notice
      there is appears to be a great deal of scarring on the top of the bumper.
      The damage shows that the damage was caused by something moving in a
      stright line with the vehicle, and some where they're moving sideways. What
      stands out is the tail lights are basically intact (one small break). The
      pictures of the commercial vehicle do not show damage that matches up. I note
      that the Elantra bumper is intact, there's no scarring of the lower
      portion of it, noting that the tag itself is intact, noting that even the muffler
      and trailer hitch is still in place. If we look at the photos with the
      measurements of the exemplar Elantra and the tractor-trailer- In nutshell,
      there is no way that that bumper is going to get on top of that Elenatra
      (and he uses the photos to support his opinions).
      => Besides opining that his opinion is based on the striations in
      the photos going crossways, the lack of damage to the lower part of the
      vehicle, the damage to the top of the bumper, and the lack of damage in the
      photographs of the semi, he also notes that the damge to the bumper shows a
      pattern; specifically, there's seven of them which appear to be evenly spaced
      and an even width- a pattern of some kind.

      -If there was contact between these vehicles, it is going to be very very
      light." The next question is what did happen.
      =>"The way this collision most likely occurs is the vehiclles merged
      or come together side to side in the event. That is basically almost the
      way the commercial vehicle driver describes it as a bump and he describes a
      shaking of the vehicle at that point in time."
      => "If we have side damage, the question becomes who changed lanes on
      who. Now, if he's already made his lane change to his left, and in his
      testimony he says I saw the vehicle, I'm changing lanes, there's no logical
      reason to move back right. So could there be a lane change of either party? I
      don't know where the impact is on the roadway. The damage is obvously
      very light in this case. And looking at the right-hand side of the truck,
      right front, the truck has pitting and scarring from normal over the road
      traffic damage here. That's to be expected. What I'm having difficulty
      finding is corresponding damge on the car which could be on the left quarter
      panel. The only area that even seems to come close to matching that on
      photograph F3 is in this corner right here above this taillight assembly. There's
      some damage here that in itself doesn't appear to correlate with the
      damage to the bumper, and it's sitting just below the turn light and taillight
      assembly there. That's going to be on that quarter panel. If they made
      contact it has to be at most a very light circumstance."

      -"The damage to the rear did not come from our truck."

      Mr. Stephens with out of Brunswick, GA.




      ____________________________
      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). The tractor-trailer driver's testimony
      is, "The car was on the right line. I am ready to pass him and I move to the
      middle lane. When I started to pass him, it was really hard riain. What
      I think when I went to pass the car, what I think so happened, that guy
      diriving the car, didn't want to let me come inside of his car, because he
      don't like it because it was rainingg and he don't want the water to get into
      the middle. When I look with my mirror this side [right], I don't see
      anything. When I tried to get to my right, incorporated to my right side, I
      felt something on my truck." Then says, "When I tried to pass that guy,
      like I said before, when I treid to pass the guy, when I looked to my mirror,
      I don't see him. By that time when I treid to get on my right lane, he is
      supposed to be far away from me. I don't know what he is doing by my truck,
      because what happened, that's what happened too many time, this -- too
      many front wheels when you try to pass, they don't let you pass, so they keep
      close to you."

      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) Nothing.
      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). Possibly cellphone.

      Are there any photo's of either vehicle? Are the photo's consistent with
      either the plaintiff or defendants version? See attached and AR's
      opinions.

      Were any photo's taken of the scene? Any tire marks? Scrapes? Gouges?,
      etc. No.

      What was the interior damage to the plaintiff vehicle? No. Was the
      seatback damaged (bent/broken)? No. Was the headrest damaged? No. Was the
      headrest properly positioned for the driver's height? Unknown. Was the
      plaintiff wearing a lap/shoulder belt (correctly). Yes. How high on the
      B post was the shoulder belt positioned in relation to the plaintiff's
      height? Unknown. Was there steering wheel damage (bent)? No. Was there
      windshield damage (Spiderweb, faceprint)? No. Was there driver side dash
      damage? No. Was there pedal damage? No. 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? See testimony above.

      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. All we know is as plaintiff describes above.

      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).The AR mentions
      this as support for a low speed impact.

      Did EMS (ambulance) respond to scene? No. Plaintiff and his wife
      traveled to Melbourne before seeking treatment. Did plaintiff refuse treatment?
      Did plaintiff have underlying medical problems?[Sam Cacciatore] The
      plaintiff was in prior wrecks. One in 1993 which was a single car roll event
      causing a gash to his nose. No follow up treatment. There was another
      prior motorcycle accident which resulted in an injured foot and a right
      shoulder injury. Plaintiff did not seek medical treatment until six weeks later
      he had one appointment with his GP for intermittent pain in the right
      shoulder. What is plaintiff's age, weight, height?

      Where is the plaintiff's vehicle now? Sold. How old is it? 2000
      Hyundai Elantra. Has it been repaired or totaled? Repaired. Has anyone
      attempted to download the CDR (black box) from it? No. Was the TT equipped
      with black box or GPS? Unknown. 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. Unknown.
      _________________________________


      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.)
      Hopefully the above summaries of the testimony provide assistance.

      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? The investigating officer testified in deposition, which will
      be read to the jury, that the property damage supported his opinion it
      occured as the plaintiff reported.

      Lastly, what's the defense expert's conclusion as to the sequence of
      events? Please see above.

      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.) He did intend to review the records after he wrote his report and he
      was to write a supplemental report, but never did. The reason is unknown.

      ____________________________________________________________________




      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. The defendant/driver said there was contact as
      described by a "bump" he felt. The AR first said there was "probably"
      contact based on the testimony but he later changed that to "possibly" based
      on the lack of damage. He said it is possible the bump or jolt the driver
      felt was a pot-hole.
      That’s all I have for the moment. More information would be helpful.










      __________________________________


      **************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See Yours in Just 2 Easy
      Steps!
      (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221322941x1201367178/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=115&bcd
      =Mayfooter51809NO115)


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • suesarkis@aol.com
      HE WAS THERE - The investigating officer will only be able to testify that in his view the damage correlated with the plaintiff s version of events. DAMNING
      Message 2 of 3 , May 18, 2009
        HE WAS THERE -

        The investigating officer will only be able to testify that in his view
        the damage correlated with the plaintiff's version of events.


        DAMNING FOR THE DEFENSE -

        -"The damage to the rear did not come from our truck."




        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
        **************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See Yours in Just 2 Easy
        Steps!
        (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221322941x1201367178/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=115&bcd
        =Mayfooter51809NO115)


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Dennis Forrester
        The Plaintiff s version sounds credible in the fact that it is very reasonable/probable that there was a stacked (3 separate) impacts. This would indicate a
        Message 3 of 3 , May 18, 2009
          The Plaintiff's version sounds credible in the fact that it is very reasonable/probable that there was a "stacked" (3 separate) impacts. This would indicate a significant speed difference between the two vehicles. I don't necessarily buy his story of punching the gas and getting out of the way, as instinctually, the first thing you're (average person) going to do in an accident is slam on the brakes, not punch the gas. The plaintiff claims to be driving along, obviously comfortable enough with conditions to have his cruise control engaged, his wife is comfortable enough to be asleep.....a tractor-trailer slams him in the rear end totally without warning and instead of shock, surprise or panic (instinctual perceptions) the plaintiff immediately thinks (reasons or cognitive reaction) to speed up and make an evasive maneuver to disengage from the situation. I won't say it can't happen, but I'd say a large percentage of driver's would not have reacted this way.

          Why did the truck hit him? Was the truck driver distracted? Asleep? Unconscious?

          How long had the plaintiff's cruise control been engaged? Had he just engaged it? He says it had just stopped raining and the sun had come out, so I assume he hadn't had it engaged for long. If he had just engaged it, did he do it properly? Did he turn it (cruise control) on, but fail to "set" it? If so, he's running 72 MPH (his words), he turns on the cruise control, lets his foot off the accelerator, and the car begins drifting (slowing significantly dependent on grade/weight) without any warning to driver's behind him (no brake lights) it would be easy to see how the truck driver "ran up on him" without warning.

          The truck driver assumable didn't think much about hitting the plaintiff, as per the plaintiff, the truck kept going, and the plaintiff had to catch up to him. Why would the truck driver not have realized he had just struck a car directly in the rear end? Side swiped a car, he wouldn't have even felt it, but to hit something right in front of your eyes and not stop??? This sounds like he must have been intentionally trying to leave the scene. Then the plaintiff was able to see that the truck driver was on his cell phone? How did he see this? What side of the truck did the plaintiff approach? If he approached in the right hand lane he would likely not have been able to see the driver due to the height/door of the truck (from the passenger side of the truck). If he approached from the left hand lane and saw the driver, it's still fishy. The plaintiff was just been rear ended by a tractor trailer, his neck is hurting, his wife has just been "jarred" awake without warning, he managed to make an evasive (72 MPH) maneuver to get away from the truck, kept his wits about him, recovered from the evasive maneuver, returned to the roadway, caught up to and overtook the tractor trailer and was able to observe the truck driver's actions. This sounds a lot like NASCAR!

          From the initial post, you mentioned the accident occurred on I-95 in South Georgia. This is a largely rural area, with lot's of on-going construction. There are 2-3 lanes and sometimes NO shoulders due to construction. Speed limit is 70 MPH and down to as low as 50 MPH in construction zones. Water is notorious for standing on the roadway in this area. It is a main thoroughfare up the eastern seaboard and a HUGE transportation hub in Savannah, GA, so truck traffic is significant. Was there any 911 callers? Witnesses? What did they report? I'm working a serious injury collision along the same highway right now that was a single vehicle, hydroplaned off roadway, into the wood line.....there were 15 911 calls reporting it!

          Let's talk about the AR...

          He says "I don't believe..." (opinion) "...there was a full strike..." Define "Full Strike"??? If I was a juror I wouldn't care what you called the strike, I would won't to know this....Did the truck contact the car??? That's all! If the truck contacted the car, in the car's lane, the truck's at fault!

          AR says..."This is a low speed impact....probably less than 5 MPH speed difference"? This sounds good but let's put this in perspective.....A tractor trailer running 75 MPH, strikes a car running 70 MPH....That's only a 5 MPH speed difference (The 5 MPH makes it low speed I guess). They were on a Interstate Highway! How were they running (truly) low speed? Have you ever been hit at a red-light by the car behind you? Go to YouTube and search 5 MPH Impact tests and watch what happens! (This is a typical test speed for absorbent bumpers). Have you ever seen a police pursuit where a police car "bumps the car from behind? (Not a PIT maneuver). What happens? The car most times begins swerving wildly.

          AR says Elantra was truck by something flush or for most of the width of the vehicle? Sounds like a truck bumper to me!

          AR says.....Striations to the top of the bumper, evenly spaced???? Think of the height difference between a truck and a car? The truck is going to over-ride the car's bumper due to the height difference. What does the underside of the truck bumper look like? Is there 7 equally spaced bolts? Support brackets? What caused these striations?

          The bottom line is unless plaintiff hires an AR, there's going to be no one to refute the Defendant's AR. If the remarks below are straight out of the AR's report, the defendant needs a new AR! The remarks are totally subjective and non scientific! This guy is supposed to be an AR????. He/she is supposed to be trained to determine FACTUAL INFORMATION!!!!!! All I see is opinions and subjective information. I want to see some science! IF the plaintiff were to hire a real AR, the defense would go home licking their wounds!

          Based on what VERY LIMITED information is being presented below, If I were a juror and you showed me a picture of damage to the REAR of the car that could have been reasonably caused by the truck, and NO side damage to the car, AND you can form a reasonable story as to what the plaintiff was doing (in other words didn't just let his foot off the gas, thinking the cruise control was engaged, I'd rule for the plaintiff!

          Just some thoughts.....

          Dennis Forrester
          Accident Investigator / Paramedic (retired)
          GA PI PDE046467
          forrester@...


          ----- Original Message -----
          From: Jurydoctor@...
          To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com ; coupons-for-opinions@yahoogroups.com
          Cc: opinions-chapel@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 12:08 PM
          Subject: [infoguys-list] Re: rear ended-answers






          In a message dated 5/18/2009 11:58:17 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

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

          "We were southbound on I-95. We're in the right-hand lane. I had the
          cruise control set at 72 mph. It had just stopped raining, and the sun was
          beginning to come out. The interstate was clear of traffic, for the most
          part. In front of me there were no cars. My wife was asleep. And just out
          of the blue there was a first impact that struck us. The impact was
          directly behind the car. As soon as that even registered, there was a second
          impact, again directly to the rear of the car. All I could see in the rearview
          mirror was the chrome grille of the tractor-trailer. And as soon as that
          had registered, there was a third and final impact, and I remember that my
          head was jerked back. It had been jerked back each time, but I remember
          it was jerked back the third time and I remember- there being a twinge in my
          neck." "And instinctively my reaction was to get us out of the situation
          as quickly as I could. So I stepped on the gas and I immediately veered off
          the side of the road onto the shoulder. The tractor-trailer continued in
          our lane, continued going strait, didn't stop.... I caught up to the
          tractor-trailer. I noticed that his arm is against the window, and I can see
          his hand was up against his ear, and I can see that he's got a cell phone..."

          The plaintiff's wife will say the first impact woke her, but otherwise her
          version is the same.

          The investigating officer will only be able to testify that in his view
          the damage correlated with the plaintiff's version of events.

          What does the accident reconstructionist say?

          The AR opinions are as follows:

          -There was probably a contact between the two vehicles, which later in the
          deposition changes to "possibly", only based on the testimony, but not on
          any visible damage;

          -"Based on the physical evidence, I don't believe there is any way this
          truck struck this car directly from the rear in a full strke while in its
          lane.";
          => This is a low speed impact, regardless of how it occured, probably
          in the ballpark of 5 mph difference in speeds;
          => "Looking at exhibit F, at the damage pattern on the back of the
          plaintiff's vehicle (Elantra), the unit was struck obviously by something flush
          or for the most of the width of the vehicle. It is a little deeper on the
          righ-hand side. In looking specifically at picture 2 of exhibit F, I notice
          there is appears to be a great deal of scarring on the top of the bumper.
          The damage shows that the damage was caused by something moving in a
          stright line with the vehicle, and some where they're moving sideways. What
          stands out is the tail lights are basically intact (one small break). The
          pictures of the commercial vehicle do not show damage that matches up. I note
          that the Elantra bumper is intact, there's no scarring of the lower
          portion of it, noting that the tag itself is intact, noting that even the muffler
          and trailer hitch is still in place. If we look at the photos with the
          measurements of the exemplar Elantra and the tractor-trailer- In nutshell,
          there is no way that that bumper is going to get on top of that Elenatra
          (and he uses the photos to support his opinions).
          => Besides opining that his opinion is based on the striations in
          the photos going crossways, the lack of damage to the lower part of the
          vehicle, the damage to the top of the bumper, and the lack of damage in the
          photographs of the semi, he also notes that the damge to the bumper shows a
          pattern; specifically, there's seven of them which appear to be evenly spaced
          and an even width- a pattern of some kind.

          -If there was contact between these vehicles, it is going to be very very
          light." The next question is what did happen.
          =>"The way this collision most likely occurs is the vehiclles merged
          or come together side to side in the event. That is basically almost the
          way the commercial vehicle driver describes it as a bump and he describes a
          shaking of the vehicle at that point in time."
          => "If we have side damage, the question becomes who changed lanes on
          who. Now, if he's already made his lane change to his left, and in his
          testimony he says I saw the vehicle, I'm changing lanes, there's no logical
          reason to move back right. So could there be a lane change of either party? I
          don't know where the impact is on the roadway. The damage is obvously
          very light in this case. And looking at the right-hand side of the truck,
          right front, the truck has pitting and scarring from normal over the road
          traffic damage here. That's to be expected. What I'm having difficulty
          finding is corresponding damge on the car which could be on the left quarter
          panel. The only area that even seems to come close to matching that on
          photograph F3 is in this corner right here above this taillight assembly. There's
          some damage here that in itself doesn't appear to correlate with the
          damage to the bumper, and it's sitting just below the turn light and taillight
          assembly there. That's going to be on that quarter panel. If they made
          contact it has to be at most a very light circumstance."

          -"The damage to the rear did not come from our truck."

          Mr. Stephens with out of Brunswick, GA.

          ____________________________
          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). The tractor-trailer driver's testimony
          is, "The car was on the right line. I am ready to pass him and I move to the
          middle lane. When I started to pass him, it was really hard riain. What
          I think when I went to pass the car, what I think so happened, that guy
          diriving the car, didn't want to let me come inside of his car, because he
          don't like it because it was rainingg and he don't want the water to get into
          the middle. When I look with my mirror this side [right], I don't see
          anything. When I tried to get to my right, incorporated to my right side, I
          felt something on my truck." Then says, "When I tried to pass that guy,
          like I said before, when I treid to pass the guy, when I looked to my mirror,
          I don't see him. By that time when I treid to get on my right lane, he is
          supposed to be far away from me. I don't know what he is doing by my truck,
          because what happened, that's what happened too many time, this -- too
          many front wheels when you try to pass, they don't let you pass, so they keep
          close to you."

          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) Nothing.
          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). Possibly cellphone.

          Are there any photo's of either vehicle? Are the photo's consistent with
          either the plaintiff or defendants version? See attached and AR's
          opinions.

          Were any photo's taken of the scene? Any tire marks? Scrapes? Gouges?,
          etc. No.

          What was the interior damage to the plaintiff vehicle? No. Was the
          seatback damaged (bent/broken)? No. Was the headrest damaged? No. Was the
          headrest properly positioned for the driver's height? Unknown. Was the
          plaintiff wearing a lap/shoulder belt (correctly). Yes. How high on the
          B post was the shoulder belt positioned in relation to the plaintiff's
          height? Unknown. Was there steering wheel damage (bent)? No. Was there
          windshield damage (Spiderweb, faceprint)? No. Was there driver side dash
          damage? No. Was there pedal damage? No. 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? See testimony above.

          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. All we know is as plaintiff describes above.

          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).The AR mentions
          this as support for a low speed impact.

          Did EMS (ambulance) respond to scene? No. Plaintiff and his wife
          traveled to Melbourne before seeking treatment. Did plaintiff refuse treatment?
          Did plaintiff have underlying medical problems?[Sam Cacciatore] The
          plaintiff was in prior wrecks. One in 1993 which was a single car roll event
          causing a gash to his nose. No follow up treatment. There was another
          prior motorcycle accident which resulted in an injured foot and a right
          shoulder injury. Plaintiff did not seek medical treatment until six weeks later
          he had one appointment with his GP for intermittent pain in the right
          shoulder. What is plaintiff's age, weight, height?

          Where is the plaintiff's vehicle now? Sold. How old is it? 2000
          Hyundai Elantra. Has it been repaired or totaled? Repaired. Has anyone
          attempted to download the CDR (black box) from it? No. Was the TT equipped
          with black box or GPS? Unknown. 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. Unknown.
          _________________________________


          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.)
          Hopefully the above summaries of the testimony provide assistance.

          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? The investigating officer testified in deposition, which will
          be read to the jury, that the property damage supported his opinion it
          occured as the plaintiff reported.

          Lastly, what's the defense expert's conclusion as to the sequence of
          events? Please see above.

          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.) He did intend to review the records after he wrote his report and he
          was to write a supplemental report, but never did. The reason is unknown.

          __________________________________________________________

          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. The defendant/driver said there was contact as
          described by a "bump" he felt. The AR first said there was "probably"
          contact based on the testimony but he later changed that to "possibly" based
          on the lack of damage. He said it is possible the bump or jolt the driver
          felt was a pot-hole.
          That’s all I have for the moment. More information would be helpful.

          __________________________________

          **************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See Yours in Just 2 Easy
          Steps!
          (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221322941x1201367178/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=115&bcd
          =Mayfooter51809NO115)

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





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