Demonstrative Evidence in Civil Trial Cases
"Biomechanics" of Serious Personal Injury

A picture is worth a thousand words. Despite this, some trial lawyers think it is a mortal sin to try a case in an interesting manner. They seem to think it is beneath their dignity to make a case a living, pulsating, experience; a vivid portrayal of the tragedy that occurred. Try a case in a humdrum manner and the result will be a humdrum verdict. Your lawyer must capture and hold the imagination and the interests of the jury, as well as garner their respect. Your lawyer must make the jurors live your case; make them participate in the joint endeavor of righting a wrong; make them feel that theirs is the voice of the community.

Sadly, more often than not, this is not done. If anything, technology has hindered society's ability to "see" through words. Many jurors, used to watching a drama unfold on television, are ill-equipped to follow a trial devoid of demonstration. If anything, the words of the lawyer may do nothing more than lull the juror to sleep. This is particularly so where complex events occur. In many instances the only way we can possibly understand the true sequence of an event is to see it, as well as hear about it.

This having been said, it is also true that a trial is about moderation. Simply because we can present certain evidence through a multimedia event, does not mean that we necessarily should. But where the complexity necessitates the need, and the capability is present, then not to use the technology will guarantee a bad outcome.

It was only 50 years ago that lawyers struggled to use a blackboard at trial. Today, plasma monitors, and videotapes of real-time teleconferencing are commonplace. Computer reenactment, animation, and utilization of high-tech substances, such as brain gel, can be used with proper foundation. Dramatic impeachment through replay of videotaped depositions are now an essential part of any trial.

Blackboards, easels, charts, graphs, PowerPoint presentations, models, even holograms are used in today's trials. A proper demonstration of how an accident or injury occurred may be the difference between a verdict for the plaintiff or defendant. Take the following scenario into account:

On August 19, 2002, plaintiff Kim Rasmussen, was operating at his 1997 Ford F-250 pickup truck on Eureka Road near sunrise Boulevard in Roseville, California. Plaintiff had earlier been shopping at a Sam's Club, and had departed the Sam's Club parking lot and was driving on Eureka Road in order to return home via Interstate 80. Traffic on Eureka Road was stop and go. Mr. Rasmussen testified that due to stopped traffic immediately in front of his vehicle, he safely brought his Ford pickup truck to a stop. With his vehicle at stop, Mr. Rasmussen, enjoying the good weather, was looking to his left out the driver side window.

Unbeknownst to Mr. Rasmussen, defendant Bruce Robert Shade had also been shopping at Sam's Club and had departed the Sam's Club parking lot immediately behind plaintiff's vehicle. Mr. Shade was operating a 1999 Dodge Durango sports utility vehicle. Mr. Shade testified that after entering Eureka Road, he was traveling approximately 2 car lengths behind Mr. Rasmussen's vehicle. Mr. Shade further testified that due to the stop and go nature of the traffic, and the downhill grade of Eureka Road, his maximum speed was no more then 3 to 7 mph.

While Mr. Shade searched for a piece of gum he had dropped in his lap, Mr. Shade's Dodge Durango rear-ended plaintiffs Ford pickup truck. Mr. Shade testified that due to the downhill grade of Eureka Road, he had only lifted his foot off of the brake pedal (without accelerating) immediately before impact occurred. Total damage to plaintiff's Ford pickup truck was less than $500. The police were not called. The plaintiff drove from the scene of the accident in his Ford pickup truck.

Unfortunately, this seemingly minor rear end automobile accident caused profound injuries to Mr. Rasmussen. Because Mr. Rasmussen was looking out his left side window, rotational forces were brought to bear on Mr. Rasmussen's head and brain. Thy diffuse axonal shearing occurred of from the saddened acceleration and deceleration forces involved. When Mr. Rasmussen's head struck the headrest in the Ford pickup truck, and then went on to move forward in a rotational movement, the forces microscopically caused axonal shear to numerous axons with in Mr. Rasmussen's brain.

And so with the above factual scenario in mind, ask yourself what the best manner of presentation of these issues would be to a prospective jury. Given that this accident involved seemingly minor forces resulting from an everyday accident in, how would you demonstrate to a jury exactly what happened to Mr. Rasmussen's brain as a result of the rear end impact? The demonstration which follows is part of the actual trial demonstration utilized by Mr. Scarlett during the trial of the case. It is important to understand that before the demonstration was utilized, several hours of foundational testimony were given by a biomechanical expert. This testimony first established the vehicle dynamics, including the delta V. computations. Secondly, the testimony established the human body dynamics, including the forces working upon Mr. Rasmussen's body at impact. Lastly, the testimony established that the forces experienced by Mr. Rasmussen were of a sufficient level so as to cause injury to the human brain. In the brain gel demonstrative evidence used during this trial was the first of its kind in the nation. Mr. Scarlett was the first attorney in the United States to use in the brain gel evidence during trial. I think that you will agree this demonstrative evidence was extremely forceful in assisting the jury to understand Hal seemingly minor forces could result in catastrophic injury and harm.

After Mr. Scarlett's biomechanical expert determined the vehicle dynamics and the human body dynamics, the expert was in a position to reenact the forces, together with rotational impact upon a skull containing brain gel. Accordingly, the front seat from plaintiffs Ford pickup truck was removed from the truck itself. Mr. Scarlett's expert utilized a high-speed camera, together with the skull containing brain gel, along with an accelerometer in order to demonstrate what the rear and collision, and forces resulting therefrom, did to plaintiffs brain upon impact with the seat back. Click on the brain and dynamic testing presentation here in order to see the demonstrative evidence used at trial .

More About Traumatic Brain Injury Cases

The following case descriptions show the power of using modern technology to win jury trial court cases. Click on the links to learn more in detail about these landmark care results.