The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.
(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this car accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)
XYZ, INS. COMPANY’S DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE HAS SEVERELY PREJUDICED THE ABILITY OF PLAINTIFF TO ESTABLISH CERTAIN FACTS CRITICAL TO LIABILITY ISSUES
Defendant’s decision to destroy their insured’s vehicle and then to misrepresent that it had never been inspected by their experts, has caused serious prejudice to plaintiff’s ability to prove certain issues extremely important to liability. Such issues include:
(1) Crush analysis that would allow plaintiff’s experts to more accurately assess the speed of defendant Brown’s vehicle when he smashed into plaintiff’s stalled car on the freeway.
(2) Determining the speed of defendant Brown’s vehicle would also be important in addressing defendant’s perception and reaction times when he observed the plaintiff’s stalled vehicle prior to this accident.
(3) The distance of illumination from defendant Brown’s headlights in front of him is also a factor that in part is based upon his rate of speed.
(4) The Delta V that all accident reconstructionists use in determining the change of velocity, which equates into the force of impact and is also a fundamental calculation for purposes of accident reconstruction.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
The above is a brief overview of just some of the many issues in which plaintiff’s accident reconstruction engineers will be at a significant disadvantage to the defense accident reconstruction engineers who have had the benefit of personally observing, measuring and photographing the defendant’s vehicle.
It is presumed that defendant will argue that their expert’s photographs will be made available to plaintiff; however, the choice of what to photograph and what not to photograph can be essential and critical in doing accident reconstruction analysis. There is no substitute for personally inspecting and measuring a crashed vehicle. Defendant cannot be allowed, under both the law and equitable principles, to be at an advantage in trial of this case due to their conduct in destroying critical evidence. Further, plaintiff should not have to rely upon defendant’s insurance company’s retained experts as a substitute for their personal inspection of the vehicle. (See Part 5 of 7.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.