In Coddington v. Nunez, an accident attorney brought a client’s case before the court on behalf of Jaime Nunez.[fusion_builder_container hundred_percent=”yes” overflow=”visible”][fusion_builder_row][fusion_builder_column type=”1_1″ background_position=”left top” background_color=”” border_size=”” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” spacing=”yes” background_image=”” background_repeat=”no-repeat” padding=”” margin_top=”0px” margin_bottom=”0px” class=”” id=”” animation_type=”” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_direction=”left” hide_on_mobile=”no” center_content=”no” min_height=”none”][1]  Mr. Nunez was involved in an automobile accident in which his vehicle was struck by Thomas and Gwynneth Coddington.  The case put forth by the accident attorney returned a jury verdict finding $600,000 in total sustained damages.  However, the jury found that Mr. Nunez was twenty-five percent liable for his injuries and accordingly, his accident attorney secured a final judgment in the amount of $488,500.  See Id.  The appellate court reversed because the trial court erred when it precluded certain expert testimony that the accident attorney for the Coddingtons.

Accident Attorney Cannot Put Forth Expert

During the trial, the accident attorney brought forth evidence that Mr. Nunez was ejected from his vehicle when Mr. Coddington turned left through an intersection having a stop sign.  During the trial, the accident attorneys brought out evidence that Mr. Codington caused the accident by entering Mr. Nunez’s lane of traffic.  However, through his accident attorney, Mr. Codington raised two defenses.  First, it was argued that Mr. Nunez was traveling above the posted thirty-five mile per hour speed limit.  The accident attorney supported this argument when Mr. Coddington testified that he saw no oncoming traffic while stopped at the intersection.  Second, the accident attorney argued on behalf of Mr. Coddington that Mr. Nunez failed to wear his seat belt and that failure contributed to his injuries.

The Coddington’s accident attorney attempted to introduce the expert opinion of a witness who conducted an accident reconstruction using a computer program based on the laws of physics.  Based on the reconstruction, the accident attorney attempted to bring out evidence that Mr. Nunez was traveling fifty-seven miles per hour at the moment of impact.

Premises for Trial Ruling

The trial court based its ruling to exclude the expert witness on three premises.  First, the prejudicial value of showing the video was outweighed by the probative value.  Second, the trial court ruled that the methods and procedures used by the expert witness were not generally accepted in the engineering community.  Finally, the court ruled that the methods of the expert witness would more probably than not lead to an unreliable result.

The appellate court found that the trial court properly excluded the reconstruction video, but did not find it necessary to determine whether the video simulation was generally accepted in the engineering community.  However, the trial court erred when it prevented the accident attorney from questioning the expert as to the speed of the vehicle and the movement of Mr. Nunez’s body inside the vehicle during the accident.  For that the reason, the case was reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Accident Attorney

Have you or a loved one been injured in an accident in Florida?  If so, contact South Florida Accident Lawyer Matthew Sean Tucker at Tucker IP, with an office conveniently located in Broward County.  Tucker IP serves clients throughout South Florida, including West Palm Beach, Fort Lauderdale, and Miami-Dade.  An Accident Attorney Law Firm that wants to help you.  Call the Firm toll-free at 1-844-4-TUCKER or send us an email through the Firm’s website.  A firm attorney will contact you for a free consultation.

* The general information provided does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as a substitute for obtaining legal advice from an attorney.  Legal cases are in fact that of persons named in the lawsuit and the mention of an attorney herein generally represent that of the client itself.  

[/fusion_builder_column][/fusion_builder_row][/fusion_builder_container]