Against this evidence, Pries submits testimony that she habitually fastened her seat belt. Her children testified that she insisted that everyone in the car buckle up. That Pries used the seat belt 99 percent of the time does not prove that she fastened it on the day of the accident. But the position of the seat belt when the car was found is not one of the laws of physics. We have two reports of observations about the condition of the belt, but these observations may be incorrect.
Memories play tricks on the best observers.
The car itself may be the best witness about conditions at the time of the accident. Strong forces leave telltale signs in physical objects, signs that can be read by people who know what to look for and have the right instruments. Later Rosenbluth testified that the striations in the belt are inconsistent with normal use. It might be possible to reconcile the obser- vations if the car had been in another accident, but there is no evidence of that. We conclude, therefore, that there is a bona fide factual dispute about whether Pries was wearing a seat belt when her car rolled over.