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.]

 

(return to document)