Source: https://www.jameseducationcenter.com/articles/accident-reconstruction-motions/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 00:49:13+00:00

Document:
Plaintiff moves in limine for an order excluding testimony, evidence, or argument concerning accident reconstruction. Plaintiff makes this motion because the evidence is unreliable and inadmissible pursuant to established laws of this state and will create a substantial danger of undue prejudice to Plaintiff.
Plaintiff supports this motion with this Notice of Motion and Motion, the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the Declaration of __________, and such other and further argument and evidence as the court receives and considers before making its ruling.
2. DEFENDANT’S ACCIDENT RECONSTRUCTION EVIDENCE VIOLATES THE STANDARDS ESTABLISHED BY STATE LAW [IN [insert leading case in your jurisdiction]], AND THE COURT SHOULD EXCLUDE THIS EVIDENCE UNLESS THE COURT MAKES A FINDING OF SCIENTIFIC RELIABILITY.
demonstrate that the correct scientific procedures were used.
Reconstruction evidence lacks sufficient evidentiary foundation and is speculative. It fails to meet the [insert leading case]3 criteria, and the court should, therefore, exclude it as unfounded and incompetent, as a matter of law.
Plaintiff moves in limine for an order excluding the testimony of, Defendant’s accident reconstruction expert,4 as to the speed of the motor vehicles based on skid marks and other facts. Plaintiff makes this motion because the opinions lack foundation, are unreliable, inadmissible, and will create a substantial danger of undue prejudice to Plaintiff.
2. THE OPINION TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT’S ACCIDENT RECONSTRUCTIONIST IS INADMISSIBLE TO ESTABLISH THE SPEED OF THE VEHICLES.
Speed of defendant’s vehicle and course of travel.
Total length of skid marks of plaintiff’s vehicle.
Coefficient of friction under conditions at time of collision.
That defendant’s car was propelled to the location shown by the police diagram solely as a result of the impact by plaintiff’s car.
Plaintiff moves in limine for an order excluding the testimony of Defendant’s accident reconstruction expert, as to the speed of the motor vehicles based on photographs of the appearance or condition of the motor vehicles after the accident. Plaintiff makes this motion because the opinions lack foundation, are unreliable, inadmissible, and will create a substantial danger of undue prejudice to Plaintiff.
Plaintiff supports this motion with this notice of motion and motion, the attached points and authorities, the Declaration of __________, and such other and further argument and evidence as the court receives and considers before ruling hereon.
2. THE RECONSTRUCTIONIST’S EXAMINATION OF PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE VEHICLES IN THE ACCIDENT IS AN INSUFFICIENT FOUNDATION TO ALLOW THE RECONSTRUCTIONIST TO OFFER AN OPINION OF THE SPEED OF THE VEHICLES.
1 See, e.g., Wyatt v. State, 23 S.W.3d 18 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (court has discretion to determine whether witness offered as expert possesses required qualifications to give expert opinion); Ramirez v. State, 542 So. 2d 352, 355 (Fla. 1989) (“This Court,… will accept new scientific methods of establishing evidentiary facts only after a proper predicate has first established the reliability of the new scientific method”); People v. Kelly, 17 Cal.3d 24 (1976) (establishing criteria for introduction of “new” science through expert witness). See generally Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993); Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999).
2 See also Silverman v. Sciartelli, 2006 WL 254452 NY AD 4 Dept. 2006 (Feb 3, 2006); Texas Electric Co-Op v. Dillard, 171 S.W.3d 201 (Tex. 2005); Carignan v. New Hampshire Intern. Speedway, Inc., 151 N.H. 409, 858 A.2d 536 (2004).
3 See, e.g., Wyatt v. State, 23 S.W.3d 18 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (court has discretion to determine whether witness offered as expert possesses required qualifications to give expert opinion); Ramirez v. State, 542 So. 2d 352, 355 (Fla. 1989) (“This Court,… will accept new scientific methods of establishing evidentiary facts only after a proper predicate has first established the reliability of the new scientific method”); People v. Kelly, 17 Cal.3d 24 (1976) (establishing criteria for introduction of “new” science through expert witness). See generally Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993); Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999).
4 In some states, this motion can be made to exclude the testimony of a traffic officer on the same basis. See, e.g., Arricale v. Leo, 744 N.Y.S. 2d 109 (2002); Johnson v. Attkisson, 722 SW2d 390 (Tenn.1986).
5 See also Kingsbury v. Hickey, 56 Ore.App. 492, 642 P.2d 339 (1982).
6 In Practice: Use experts “estimates” and assumptions to exclude testimony. This motion attacks the reconstructionist at the heart of the junk science. The reconstructionist “makes up” or “estimates” the information necessary to arrive at the conclusion needed, i.e., that the Delta v. is less than 5. Carefully scrutinize the deposition testimony for all “estimates” and assumptions the reconstructionist makes to support his opinion. Ask about the references relied on by the witness, and review them yourself. Often, you will find that the total opinion is unfounded. Use this motion as a mechanism to educate the judge as to what is going on and the reasons the opinion is so prejudicial (more prejudicial than probative) under the rules of evidence. See, e.g., California Evidence Code §352; Colorado Rules of Evidence, Rule 403; Illinois Evidence Code §403; Michigan Rules of Evidence, Rule 403; Ohio Rules of Evidence, Rule 403.
7 In some states, this motion can be made to exclude the testimony of a traffic officer on the same basis.
8 See also Kingsbury v. Hickey, 56 Or. App. 492, 642 P.2d 339 (1982).
Steven R. Young is a partner in the Houston, Texas office of the litigation firm of Godwin Pappas Ronquillo, LLP, and has been a practicing trial lawyer for 30 years. Mr. Bankston is Board-Certified in Personal Injury Trial Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization. He was first certified in 1985, and has been re-certified every five years since, most recently in 2005.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §352
 §403
 v.