[brief] Plaintiff and Co-defendant completely ignore Plaintiff’s testimony describing how the accident occurred.  Plaintiff and [...] were both traveling on Route 54, one north and one south.  Accordingly, both were subject to the same traffic signal.  The jury clearly rejected [...]’s version of the accident and accepted Plaintiff’s version.  Having accepted the Plaintiff’s version of the accident, the jury could not logically conclude that [...] was negligent because [...] necessarily entered the intersection before Plaintiff with the same yellow light while traveling at a similar speed.  Plaintiff also contends that [...] was speeding at the time of the accident.  [...] again estimated his speed to be about 60 miles per hour and that he did not increase his speed or accelerate as he approached the intersection.  3T:147-8 to10; 3T:150-15 to 21.  Plaintiff testified that she was traveling about 55 miles per hour as she approached the intersection and that she did not slow down as she approached the intersection.  3T:187-20 to 188-5.  According to the police report, the speed limit on Route 54 in the area of the accident was 55 miles per hour.  Da136.  This means both Plaintiff and [...] may have been traveling slightly in excess of the speed limit at the time of the accident.  Plaintiff cannot in one breath contend that [...] traveling as much as five miles an hour above the speed limit constitutes a basis for a finding of negligence against [...] when Plaintiff was very likely traveling at the same or almost the same speed.  This is yet another example of Plaintiff ignoring the facts and manipulating the testimony to fit a narrative that supports the Plaintiff’s position.  Plaintiff’s and Co-Defendant’s position simply ignores the objective truth and indisputable evidence.  Accepting [...]’s testimony about his speed as true, as Plaintiff has done, it was not physically possible for [...] to be 200 feet from the intersection when the light turned yellow and ultimately collide with Plaintiff’s vehicle on the north side of the intersection after being struck by the [...] vehicle.  The accident simply could not have happened that way and the jury’s conclusion that it did constitute a miscarriage of justice.  Other than misrepresenting [...]’s testimony, neither Plaintiff nor Co-defendant provides any meaningful analysis of the evidence concerning the allocation of fault.  In Plaintiff’s 11-page Statement of Facts, she devotes one paragraph to a discussion of [...]’s testimony about what he was doing in the moments before the accident and misrepresents what he stated.  Pb5.  The remainder of Plaintiff’s discussion of the facts is devoted almost entirely to a discussion of Plaintiff’s injuries and damages.  Plaintiff provides lengthy block quotes from the trial court’s written decision denying Defendant’s motion for a new trial in respect of the evidentiary rulings made during the trial.  Pb8-11.  Plaintiff never discusses her own testimony or the contradiction between the physical evidence and the suggestion that [...] was 200 feet from the intersection when the light turned green.  Neither Plaintiff nor [...] has even attempted to explain how it could be physically possible for [...] to be farther away from the intersection than Plaintiff when the light turned yellow and travel a farther distance than Plaintiff while traveling at a similar speed.  They make no effort to address this fundamental flaw in the jury’s verdict because they have no way of credibly explaining the inherent contradiction in the jury’s verdict.  LEGAL ARGUMENT I.