![]() With respect to methodology: explore any scientific standards, equations or literature relied upon, and ask whether the officer can identify the error rate or cite to studies supporting the reliability of that methodology.Īrmed with this deposition testimony, you are better poised to exclude improper opinions.With respect to training and expertise: explore in detail the officer’s training (or, more likely, lack thereof) in accident reconstruction, physics, engineering, biomechanical engineering, human factors, and accident investigation.With respect to the law applied: identify code sections the officer failed to consider, and identify where the officer is relying on subjective interpretation of the vehicle code, as well as what standards are being applied (i.e., is any objective standard used to determine whether a speed is “safe” or is that just a gut feeling or retrospective analysis?).With respect to facts and witness statements relied upon: Confirm a lack of personal knowledge where applicable, verify which portions of the report contain verbatim witness statements versus summaries, and identify where the officer is assessing witness credibility or making assumptions.For each opinion or conclusion expressed in the police report, identify all the bases, including (a) facts and witness statements relied upon, (b) law applied, (c) training and expertise, and (d) methodology. ![]() This would include opinions regarding fault (aka “primary factor”), causation, vehicle code violations, accident reconstruction (i.e., times, speeds, distances, and/or point of impact), and human factors (i.e., visibility or perception/reaction time)
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |