McHenry Forum - Crash Reconstruction & Simulation

Posted: **Wed Nov 27, 2013 3:16 pm**

From the New York Personal Injury Blog: Deconstructing the Biomechanical Engineer
Which starts:

Every so often a defendant will hire an expert that will look at pictures of the damage to a vehicle, and then pretend to tell the jury that the plaintiff couldn’t have been hurt based on damage to the vehicle.
You saw that word “pretend,” didn’t you?
When people talk about “junk science” it is usually defense-minded folks looking to blame plaintiffs’ lawyers for some crazy theory of injury. But I see the other side when it comes from less-than-candid defense experts (such as this).
The phrase junk science likely popped into the head (but not the written opinion) of Justice Arlene Bluth whos recent decision in Neat v. Pfeffer (filed Sept 19, 2013) is applicable to anyone in any part of the country, as she gives a road map to exposing the junk. So it is worth reading even if you hale from elsewhere.recently, as she sat in her New York County Supreme Court motor vehicle part (which, for you out-of-towners, is our top trial level court).

See the full blog posting:

And the ruling