The following blog entry is written to illustrate how a car accident lawsuit might follow. Reviewing this kind of case 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.)
Plaintiffs alleged that Travis’ testimony that the initial impact involved Merry’s pickup striking his cab behind the driver’s door demonstrated that he did not see the beginning of the accident because it did not account for the damage to the headlight, front quarter panel and front wheel of his cab. Human factors analysis demonstrated that Travis’ description of the accident—Merry’s pickup turning sharply, crossing the centerline and striking him behind the driver’s door–was contrary to anticipated driver behavior; drivers do not turn sharply into oncoming traffic. Plaintiffs alleged that the impact Travis described would not have resulted in the pickup moving from that impact into the path of the second truck.
Contrastingly, accident reconstruction established that what actually happened was that Travis allowed his rig to drift over the centerline. In response, Merry attempted to steer sharply to the right to avoid the oncoming truck but was struck by the front of the cab behind the driver’s door of the pickup, causing the pickup truck to then spin into the path of the oncoming second truck and trailer.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
Defendants contended that the only two witnesses to the accident–defendant Travis and Tom Slavock (the driver of the second truck)–both testified that the pickup truck crossed the centerline and struck the Travis rig. The only physical evidence of the accident was a scrape mark and skid mark in the westbound lane (all the debris was moved away before the CHP arrived in order to clear the roadway). This physical evidence indicated that the collisions had occurred in the westbound lanes, which was a conclusion reached by the investigating highway patrol officer. Defendants contended that accident reconstruction confirmed that the initial impact occurred when Merry’s pickup crossed over the centerline and struck the front of Travis’ cab. Defendants also contended that Merry, who was tired because he had recently driven 21 hours from Texas and was on his first day of working the graveyard shift, fell asleep which caused his vehicle to drift over the line.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.