WORKING MODEL - HEAD-ON COLLISION
In this case PSI used a “working model” to reconstruct the accident to disprove the opposition’s theory.
Click the PDF Icon to download and read the entire case study
THE CHALLENGE
Often the attorney & expert cannot obtain access to the crime, fire or accident scene, or the scene has been changed since the event. This makes it difficult or impossible to accurately reconstruct the event.
THE SOLUTION
Precision Simulations, Inc. (PSI) has often been retained to develop an accurate, 3-D virtual “working model” of the scene as it existed before and after the event. This computer generated visual model will include all the known physical evidence and will enable the attorney and experts to bridge gaps in evidence to reconstruct what happened, determine what could NOT have happened, and who was at fault. The working model can then be converted into a compelling animation to “show” the jury what actually occurred.
THE SCENARIO
A Taurus and a Pickup Truck collided at 50 m.p.h. around a blind curve. All occupants died immediately and there were no third party witnesses. The impact was believed to have occurred in the outside lane. An irregularly shaped berm may have blocked the line of sight.
CHP SCENE ANALYSIS
Although drugs found at the scene belonged to the driver of the Taurus, the CHP determined the impact occurred in the outside lane (the lane the Taurus correctly traveled in). Therefore, the CHP concluded the Pickup driver was at fault.
CHP Conclusions: “V-2 (Pickup Truck) was entering the same curve from the eastbound lane. For unknown reasons driver allowed V-2 to drift north across the double yellow lines into the path of V-1 (Taurus). Due to their closure space in time and distance, V-1 had little if any time at all to react to V-2’s illegal position in the roadway.”
“V-2 caused this collision as a result of his driving to the left of the double yellow lines.”
COMPETING THEORIES
Although the CHP determined the pickup driver was at fault, the attorney for the pickup driver claims that the Taurus was driving in the wrong lane (inside lane) and that each vehicle turned into the outside lane simultaneously to avoid collision. The deceased driver of the Taurus - whose lane the impact occured in - is now the Defendant in the case.
Who is to BLAME?
* No third-party witnesses
* Both drivers are deceased
* Accident in uninhabited rural area
Perception and reaction question: Was there enough time to avoid an accident? Who was in the wrong lane?
