Sample of STARS Consulting Cases:
Crash Dispute: 9-Vehicle (2-Semi) in a snow squall Civil - Severe Injury
SYNOPSIS: Client was a passenger in one of several vehicles impacted by two tractor-trailers during a snow squall. OSHP was unable to correctly define the sequence of crash events. Disputant’s employer denied liability.
INVESTIGATION: Analysis of OSHP photos, witness statements, relative locations of vehicles at-rest, time-distance, commercial-vehicle specific kinematics, commercial vehicle air brake operation, reconstruction of data secured from the Eaton-VORAD collision warning system used by one of the semis, analysis of post-crash inspection of both semis.
FINDINGS:
- Witness statements, damage evident in photos, and kinematics indicated that one tractor-trailer and two other vehicles were involved in a separate crash (that occurred after sequence of events that involved client).
- Paint transfer and damage visible in photos provided evidence of the sequence of impacts of the six vehicles involved in client’s crash.
- Reconstruction of the VORAD data confirmed the range, relative location, and speed differential of the first two vehicles struck by the semi (client’s was 2nd one struck).
- Paint transfer location and post crash inspection of the semi gave evidence that the first impact created a brake system air leak that caused the trailer brakes to lock. This was supported by photos of the vehicle at rest (snow piled in front of trailer tires).
- Photos of damage to client’s vehicle positively linked the semi trailer that struck her.
OUTCOME – Positive
Crash Dispute: Car vs. 16 Passenger Van Civil - Double Fatality
SYNOPSIS: Disputant filed wrongful death action against client’s estate citing Highway Patrol investigation finding excessive speed and left-of-center.
INVESTIGATION: Vehicle analysis, investigation of hydroplane propensity, investigation of crash site hydrology history, review of OSHP investigation.
FINDINGS:
- OSHP reconstruction erred in methodology of determining client’s speed at impact.
- Client’s vehicle would have hydroplaned at or below posted speed limit causing loss of control.
- Topography coupled with a high volume of water crossing the roadway (unanticipated by client) was the proximate cause of the crash.
- ODOT officials were aware of repeated flooding during the 1-year history of this new section of highway, recording multiple road closures and detours.
- Adequate drainage for neighboring topography was not planned or provided (until after the crash).
OUTCOME – Positive
Crash Dispute: 2-Car (non-contact) Civil - Severe Injury
SYNOPSIS: Disputant claimed client was left-of-center which forced his loss of control & subsequent crash into a tree.
INVESTIGATION: Forensic Map of Scene & approach, analysis of speed using crush-deformation
FINDINGS:
- Police investigation erred in identification of disputant tire marks.
- No physical evidence to support that either vehicle was LOC at location where vehicles met.
- Clear physical evidence that disputant’s car was moving away from center of roadway at onset of his tire friction marks.
- Photos revealed two tires w/very low pressure on disputant’s car not caused by crash.
- Disputant’s car was exceeding the speed limit.
- Speed of disputant was unsafe for the location.
- Disputant’s injuries would have been minimized or eliminated had he been utilizing a seat belt.
- Crash cause was disputant’s excessive speed, vehicle condition, and inexperience.
OUTCOME – Positive
Crash Dispute: Car vs. Motorcycle Civil - Fatality
SYNOPSIS: Client (passenger on cycle) was killed upon impact with a car after the cycle operator drove at unsafe speed in a reckless manner.
INVESTIGATION: Trajectory/speed analysis, motorcycle-specific deceleration analysis, time-distance analysis, review of OSHP reconstruction.
FINDINGS
- OSHP reconstruction failed to account for total speed of cycle (before advent of braking).
- Disputant was driving at an unsafe speed (excess of 20 MPH over posted limit)
- Pre-crash witness history coupled with a pre-impact line of sight to support that the disputant was driving with the intent to inflict fear into her passenger and other motorists.
OUTCOME – Positive
Crash Dispute: 2-Car Civil - Injuruy
SYNOPSIS: Client collided with a car that pulled into her path from a private drive. An independent witness alleged that client was speeding. Disputant’s insurance denied payment based upon witness.
INVESTIGATION: Momentum analysis, time-distance analysis, perception-reaction time analysis, forensic map, line-of-sight analysis.
FINDINGS:
- Client’s speed was below the posted limit prior to impact.
- Independent witness was not in a position to accurately estimate client’s speed.
- Disputant did not stop prior to entering the roadway.
- A view obstruction prevented client from observing disputant’s car upon approaching the driveway.
- The opportunity to view disputant’s car was too brief to allow reaction (braking) before impact.
OUTCOME – Positive
Crash Dispute: Car vs. Motorcycle Civil - Serious Injury
SYNOPSIS: Disputant changed lanes on multi-lane highway, side-swiping client (on motorcycle) causing him to crash.
INVESTIGATION: Vehicle examination, analysis of disputant’s line-of-sight (passenger mirror), time-distance analysis, analysis of occupant-cycle kinematics.
FINDINGS:
- Disputant was driving with divided attention (cell phone use, steering with knees).
- Disputant did not check her “blind spot” before turning into lane to her right.
- Speed, distance, and timing placed client out of disputant’s field of view in her passenger-side mirror at the time she changed lanes.
- Post-crash kinematics of cycle & rider verified the chain of events described by client.
OUTCOME – Positive