In California, Defendants often argue that a Plaintiff was comparatively
at fault for the accident occurring. Often times, the Defendant will allege
that the Plaintiff could and should have been able to avoid the accident
had they themselves not been negligent in their actions.
The video below was used in a case where our client was riding as a passenger
in his brother’s pick up truck on their way to work early in the
morning. They came upon a grape harvesting operation in which a gondola
had been left partially on the roadway, with no warning lights or other
safety precautions. Though Plaintiff and his brother were traveling within
the speed limit for the roadway, the low visibility on that dark morning
did not allow them sufficient time to avoid a devastating collision.
To recreate for a jury the conditions as they would have been the morning
of the accident, the Scarlett Law Group went to great lengths to produce
the following visibility study. This would allow the jury to be in the
vehicle as it travelled down the roadway. They could clearly see that
by failing to utilize proper warning lights and reflectors, Defendants
put our client in an impossible situation. Because of the low visibility
of the gondola, our client had no chance to avoid the accident.
The video has three segments. First, a test run is done at 55 miles per
hour without a gondola present. Next, the actual accident conditions are
recreated to show what our client and the driver of the vehicle would
have seen the morning of the accident. Here it is clearly shown that with
the weather conditions that morning, the driver had no opportunity to
avoid the collision.
In the third segment of the video, the appropriate safety devices are in
place and another test run is performed. It is clearly shown that with
the use of these safety devices, our client would have had time to slow
to a point where the collision could have easily been avoided and no injury
would have occurred.
The fourth and final segment of the video displays a side by side comparison
between the test run where the actual accident conditions existed and
the test run where the proper safety precautions were present. This comparison
clearly shows that if the Defendants had used the required safety precautions,
the collision could have easily been avoided.
The visibility study assisted settlement with numerous defendants in this