Expert evidence an important component in accident trials
Special forensic accident investigators are often called to testify in court. This testimony often deals merely with the photographs they took at a scene, what happened there, etc. An interesting trend is however developing where legal professionals are becoming more aware of the scientific aspects of a motor vehicle crash and the need to gain clarity on the different components of such an accident. This also includes an accurate refection on surrounding distances between vehicles, positions of people etc.
These experts are warned against venturing an opinion and requested only to comment on what they actually saw and experienced. It is however unavoidable that an experienced accident investigator will reflect on past experiences and venture towards offering an “opinion” as to the most likely events to have brought about the result…
The importance of “testimony about accident investigation” was recently highlighted in a judgment from which I would like to quote:
“Now I have heard many, many, many a hundred, a thousand accidents in this court in the past fifteen years. So, although I would never give myself out as an expert, I have heard how many accidents happened and why or the way that is described, makes absolutely a sense…
Now the evidence of Mr. Bezuidenhout, I must admit is probably the best I have heard in many years. I have heard how many experts testifying in this court, some good, some bad. I have heard seven people, so-called experts, come and testify as to the reconstruction of accidents afterwards. This one professor from Stellenbosch who made sort of a good impression on the Court, but not brilliant, but I must admit, this witness who testified today, is taking the cake by far. He clearly is head and shoulders above all other experts I have seen in court. Although he did not testify as an expert today, the evidence that he gave is so clear and precise that the Court cannot find any mistake whatsoever with that. While he gave his evidence, he did not want to venture into any assumptions or conclusions that he had drawn in cross-examination, he was pressed to make them and only after the Court said if that is the case, you can go ahead and make them, he made those conclusions and they, unfortunately make a hundred percent sense. I cannot say any reason why the Court should not accept them. To come and say afterwards, but you cannot say that that is the glass that was lying there was from this accident or that you cannot say there was not other glass. He gave his explanation and his explanation is very clear that there was no other glass and it is very clear that that glass, he explained why it would have been there, why it would not have been in the front car, why it would not have been at another place. As I say, all the evidence regarding the possible point of impact, there is clearly no reason why the Court should not accept that, not even a hint of a suggestion that I cannot accept it.”
Road safety can only benefit if justice prevails through the accurate determination of the causes of accidents. It is important that the innocent victims of accidents are not traumatized further and that offenders are found guilty and punished appropriately.
The Arrive Alive Road Safety website and this Blog would like to congratulate those accident investigators such as Mr Bezuidenhout who are assisting the courts in the effort to find a fair trial and justice!
Also visit the Arrive Alive website and the information on “How to choose an Accident Investigator’’
Recent Comments