Fig. 3. A photograph showing a side view of the Chevron vehicle and Karen (in purple) lying off to the front of it - a place she arrived at by
being propelled through thin air.
Notice that a fair sized portion of the car's rear-end is hanging over the
crosswalk, with the front-end, the impact point, twelve or thirteen
feet beyond the crosswalk line.
To the jury, this photo
was apparently further corroboration that the plaintiff had - in the
often repeated words of the Chevron lawyer - "wandered considerably outside
of the marked crosswalk" at impact.
The primary questions here are: How many feet forward did
the front end of the car - the impact point - travel from the time that
X first saw
the plaintiff ("instantly prior to" striking her, he said) to his
"applying" the brakes and bringing the car to a halt - on wet
pavement? How fast would a car have to be traveling at impact to
propel someone that many feet through the air?
Does any of this indicate that the plaintiff was
at least near the crosswalk line at
impact and thereby covered by the trial judge's ruling which
said that, "a person walking near a crosswalk, should be
considered to within that crosswalk"? To answer that
question in court I think it would make great sense to rely upon
independent scientific analysis of the available data, rather than
leaving it to some lawyer stuck in repetitive lie mode
explaining it all away to twelve potentially clueless strangers in off the street.
[Click on the
following link to read the rather short and sweet statute on
pedestrians in crosswalks.]