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

Re: broken bones

Expand Messages
  • Jurydoctor@aol.com
    . Please feel free to send this to your other friends. As always your opinions are important. Thanks in advance for your input. Amy Singer jurydoctor@aol.com
    Message 1 of 4 , Feb 28, 2010
      . Please feel free to send this to your other friends.
      As always your opinions are important. Thanks in advance for your input.
      Amy Singer
      jurydoctor@...






      This case involves an accident on 4/6/07 at 2:41am on SR 56 in the southern state. At that time, my Dana was driving east when a semi-tractor trailer (heading west) made a u-turn in front of her. The police report says that Dana was going 70mph in a 55 mph zone. There was minimal braking before the impact and the crash was almost like an “explosion.” Dana had 32 broken bones and has undergone 7 major surgeries. At the request of the FHP trooper, blood was drawn from her at the hospital. Her BAC was .086% which is slightly over the legal limit.

      Here is what I need feedback on:


      The Defendant truck driver said in his deposition that he had never been told that making u-turns in a tractor-trailer was dangerous. In his personnel file we discovered that, 2 years before this accident, his employer had him sign a form stating that he knew that u-turns were dangerous and promising never to do one.




      Does this matter to you? why or why not?



      2. Dana was under age (almost 20 at the time of the accident) and had used a fake ID to get drinks at a bar.

      What do you think?

      There is an issue as to whether Dana was wearing her seatbelt. The investigating officer said she was - the defense expert will say she wasn’t. She has no memory but says she always wears it. Her airbag did deploy.

      What do you think? also if the airbag deployed does it matter?


      3. The tractor-trailer was at an angle (ie. not perpendicular) across the roadway. This might help explain why Dana didn’t see it until the last second. It had reflective tape on the side, but not as much as is required. The passenger in Dana’s front seat - who was totally sober – said he could not see the truck until right before the impact. It was very dark out and this area is semi- rural without much street lighting.

      What do you think about this issue?



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Dennis Forrester
      Here s my thoughts..... I d like to know where he took his CDL Licensure course, and what they taught him, and also what was on the CDL Test that he took. Even
      Message 2 of 4 , Feb 28, 2010
        Here's my thoughts.....

        I'd like to know where he took his CDL Licensure course, and what they taught him, and also what was on the CDL Test that he took.
        Even though he signed a form by his employer to never make a u-turn, the form is pretty stupid) as there are times when he may be forced to make a u-turn, despite whatever form he signed. (Example: road is closed and no alternative route exists). This seems like "cover-your-butt rule" by the employer, and I don't think it will stand ground. There are so many factors to consider. Did the company reinforce the u-turn policy with corrective/disciplinary action? He signed it two years prior to the accident. Did they require him to sign it annually? Did they monitor driver's driving styles/tactics? Did they require the driver's to sign off on these forms with any form of regularity? Did they have a safety program? What is the driver history for accidents? What is the company history for accidents? IF the company routinely enforced it's driver's policy's with corrective/disiplinary actions, and had a safety program, and had routine safety training programs and the driver had easy access to and frequent reminders of the company polices, than yes it would matter, because the driver was doing something he knew was wrong, and had routinely been told was wrong. If the company had him sign a document 2 years ago and then filed it away "just in case" and never brought it up again, then no, I don't think the driver is accountable to the no u-turn policy at all, as the company has set the tone that it's only "on paper" and not "in practice".


        I'd also like to know: How long had the driver been driving that particular day? What does his driver's logs reflect? Does the log match his fuel tickets? Why was he u-turning? Was there a reasonable alternative to u-turning? How familiar with the area was the driver?

        I think that Dana is responsible for her own actions. She was under age, speeding (at night), and was DUI. She had a (in your words) a sober passenger whom she could have let drive the car. Obviously her judgment was impaired by the fact that she was DUI, her depth perception was impaired (due to DUI), she was 15 MPH over the limit in an otherwise dark, unlit area (so she was out driving her headlight range), which is her own fault. Plus, the speed limit of 55 MPH is in IDEAL CONDITIONS. In the middle of the night is not an "ideal condition".

        There was minimal braking before impact, indicates yet again, that Dana was outdriving the field of vision provided by her headlights and/or was asleep, "zoned out" or had a screwed up sense of "depth perception" or she would have been in the brakes a whole lot sooner. I understand the truck was sideways in the road, and didn't have adequate reflectors, but I have a hard time believing that you can't see a 70 foot long, 14 foot high BOX in the middle of the road with headlights shining at one end! We're the clearance lights on the truck/trailer working? Cab clearance lights? Blinkers? Taillights? Was there fog? rain? curve in the road? Dip in the road? Hilltop? What was her view coming up to the area of impact? What was the trucker's view? He may have seen her way down the road and misjudged her speed, knowing it was a 55 MPH zone, he wasn't expecting to have her coming at him at 70 MPH instead.

        The seatbelt issue is another problem for Dana. If they prove she didn't have it on, then again, I'd say she contributed to her own injuries! What was the passengers injuries? Did the passenger have a seatbelt on? If the passenger was seat belted and walked away with less injuries than Dana, and unless you can convince me that Dana's side of the vehicle took a much worse impact than the front passenger side, I'd say "See the passenger? This could be you if you weren't drunk and would have been wearing a seatbelt?" Whether the seatbelt was on or off is imperative in my opinion. If it was off, she contributed to her own injuries! She took a knowingly unsafe position when she was driving (on top of already knowing she was DUI). The airbag is not an alternative for a seatbelt. The airbag is not designed to replace a seatbelt, or to be used instead of one. The airbag is designed to keep you out of the windshield and off of the steering wheel/column. The airbag is not your friend! It is not a soft fluffy pillow to hit. It will hurt you, and can kill you, if not used in conjunction with a seatbelt. The fact that it deployed or didn't deploy is irrelevant.

        The fact that the front seat passenger couldn't see the tractor trailer until they were right up on it is irrelevant to me also. The passenger had no obligation to look for the truck. The passenger could have been looking at Dana, looking at the stars and the moon or looking off into oblivion for that matter. The fact that they didn't see the truck until they were right up on it, tells me that Dana (when she finally) slammed on the brakes, snapped the passenger back to reality to see what the matter was and that's when the passenger saw the truck.

        I'd place Dana at 80% responsible for her own injuries since she was voluntarily impaired and possibly not restrained, and she had an alternative solution (sober passenger) immediately available so she did not have to be driving. Had she not been impaired she could have quite possibly avoided the collision.

        I'd assign the truck driver 20% blame for failure to yield right-of-way.

        Thanks,

        Dennis Forrester
        Accident Investigator, Paramedic (retired)
        Smith & Carson, Inc
        Atlanta, GA



        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Jurydoctor@...
        To: opinions-chapel@yahoogroups.com ; infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com ; forensic-debate@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2010 12:42 PM
        Subject: [infoguys-list] Re: broken bones





        . Please feel free to send this to your other friends.
        As always your opinions are important. Thanks in advance for your input.
        Amy Singer
        jurydoctor@...

        This case involves an accident on 4/6/07 at 2:41am on SR 56 in the southern state. At that time, my Dana was driving east when a semi-tractor trailer (heading west) made a u-turn in front of her. The police report says that Dana was going 70mph in a 55 mph zone. There was minimal braking before the impact and the crash was almost like an “explosion.” Dana had 32 broken bones and has undergone 7 major surgeries. At the request of the FHP trooper, blood was drawn from her at the hospital. Her BAC was .086% which is slightly over the legal limit.

        Here is what I need feedback on:


        The Defendant truck driver said in his deposition that he had never been told that making u-turns in a tractor-trailer was dangerous. In his personnel file we discovered that, 2 years before this accident, his employer had him sign a form stating that he knew that u-turns were dangerous and promising never to do one.

        Does this matter to you? why or why not?



        2. Dana was under age (almost 20 at the time of the accident) and had used a fake ID to get drinks at a bar.

        What do you think?

        There is an issue as to whether Dana was wearing her seatbelt. The investigating officer said she was - the defense expert will say she wasn’t. She has no memory but says she always wears it. Her airbag did deploy.

        What do you think? also if the airbag deployed does it matter?


        3. The tractor-trailer was at an angle (ie. not perpendicular) across the roadway. This might help explain why Dana didn’t see it until the last second. It had reflective tape on the side, but not as much as is required. The passenger in Dana’s front seat - who was totally sober – said he could not see the truck until right before the impact. It was very dark out and this area is semi- rural without much street lighting.

        What do you think about this issue?

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





        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Bob Hrodey
        ... Unless this driving activity is unlawful, his violation (since we haven t been told WHY he was making the u-turn) means nothing to me. No more so than
        Message 3 of 4 , Feb 28, 2010
          On 2/28/2010 12:42 PM, Jurydoctor@... wrote:
          > This case involves an accident on 4/6/07 at 2:41am on SR 56 in the southern state. At that time, my Dana was driving east when a semi-tractor trailer (heading west) made a u-turn in front of her. The police report says that Dana was going 70mph in a 55 mph zone. There was minimal braking before the impact and the crash was almost like an “explosion.” Dana had 32 broken bones and has undergone 7 major surgeries. At the request of the FHP trooper, blood was drawn from her at the hospital. Her BAC was .086% which is slightly over the legal limit.
          >
          > Here is what I need feedback on:
          >
          >
          > The Defendant truck driver said in his deposition that he had never been told that making u-turns in a tractor-trailer was dangerous. In his personnel file we discovered that, 2 years before this accident, his employer had him sign a form stating that he knew that u-turns were dangerous and promising never to do one.
          >
          > Does this matter to you? why or why not?
          >

          Unless this driving activity is unlawful, his "violation" (since we
          haven't been told WHY he was making the u-turn) means nothing to me. No
          more so than his failure to wear the company uniform which may consist
          of a red & white striped shirt and purple trousers.

          > 2. Dana was under age (almost 20 at the time of the accident) and had used a fake ID to get drinks at a bar.
          >
          > What do you think?
          >

          I think Dana's a bad girl. She has made bad choices and is now seeking
          to have the trucking company share responsibility for her unlawful
          conduct. That she was drinking at all is "all on her." Similarly, the
          fact that she was drunk, puts it all on her as far as I'm concerned.

          > There is an issue as to whether Dana was wearing her seatbelt. The investigating officer said she was - the defense expert will say she wasn’t. She has no memory but says she always wears it. Her airbag did deploy.
          >
          > What do you think? also if the airbag deployed does it matter?
          >


          I think that if the crash was "almost like an explosion" there will be
          patterned injuries present unless... strike that, I KNOW there will be
          patterned injuries from the belt across her pelvic, lower abdominal, and
          chest area unless, of course, since it was April in Florida, she was
          dressed up like the Michelin Man in multi-layered, heavily padded
          clothing extending down to mid-thigh. That said, unless she was
          required to take extreme evasive measures immediately prior to the
          collision and failed to maintain control of the vehicle as a result of
          not being properly belted in, this aspect of the case is only
          significant with respect to the severity of injuries.

          Air bag deployment would only be an issue if it failed to deploy.


          > 3. The tractor-trailer was at an angle (ie. not perpendicular) across the roadway. This might help explain why Dana didn’t see it until the last second. It had reflective tape on the side, but not as much as is required. The passenger in Dana’s front seat - who was totally sober – said he could not see the truck until right before the impact. It was very dark out and this area is semi- rural without much street lighting.
          >
          > What do you think about this issue?
          >

          What is the topography in the area of the crash? If it is not more or
          less straight and level, this MAY enter into it. In any event, she
          would appear to be driving beyond the illumination of her headlights.
          Again, her bad. There was some reflective tape on the side of the semi
          but you say it was not the amount required. Tell us what is required
          and what was present. Omitting this fact while asking what we think
          about the issue is somewhat, well, you know. Don't shuck and jive us.
          There either was or was not the required amount of retro-reflective
          marking on the truck/trailer. If you don't wish to tell us that the law
          required 396" of marking and the truck only had 394" tell us!

          Bottom line: You have an under-aged kid drinking, driving drunk,
          speeding, out driving her lights. I'm guessing that her passenger
          doesn't think her pockets (or those of her parents) are any deeper than
          her thought processes. Too bad! I don't see the truck driver and his
          company paying for this one.


          --
          Enjoy,

          /Bob/
          ________________________________________________________________
          Hrodey & Associates Established 1977
          Post Office Box 366 Member of NALI, ASIS, FBINAA,
          NAPPS
          Woodstock, IL 60098-0366 NCISS, & P.A.W.L.I.
          Licensed in IL & WI (815) 337-4636 Voice
          337-4638 Fax
          email: inquiry@... or rth@...
          Illinois License 115-000783 Wisconsin 8045-063


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Jurydoctor@aol.com
          The truck driver broke the rules of the road and the rules of the company, the plaintiff broke the rules of the law. I find her 80% negligent and the
          Message 4 of 4 , Mar 2, 2010
            The truck driver broke the rules of the road and the rules of the company, the plaintiff broke the rules of the law. I find her 80% negligent and the truckdriver 20% negligent.

            Even if, as she says, she did not see the truck making a U turn, surely she should have seen his headlights and they would not have been straight ahead if he was already turning at a 45 degree angle.

            By the way, what color was this truck?



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