In Skinner v. Poston, 71 So. 2d 702 (1954), the Court of Appeal decided on March 24, 1954 that the plaintiff was at fault by driving in an unsafe speed when he got into a truck accident with the defendant.
This case illustrated the facts a court reviewed in resolving vehicle accident cases. Vehicle accident cases are actions in negligence, requiring a showing that a defendant owed a plaintiff a legal duty, that the defendant breached the duty, and that the breach was a proximate or legal cause of the injuries plaintiff suffered. The disposition of vehicle accident cases are usually based on the facts surrounding the location of vehicles, the speed of drivers, and the witness’ credibility.
Skinner may be persuasive precedent for a personal injury case in Chicago. In Skinner, the plaintiff was driving a gasoline delivery truck. The defendant engaged a surveyor who prepared an exhibit for trial on the highway where the accident occurred. What was special about the survey was that the surveyor completed it when the gasoline delivery truck tire imprints were still visible. The physical facts also showed the plaintiff did not use his brakes at the time of the accident because there were no skid marks. Without skid marks, the speed of the gasoline delivery truck could not be determined, but the trial court found the speed for the road conditions, was not safe.
When reconstructing an accident in Chicago, the fresher the testimony or evidence gathered to the time of the incident, the more believable the evidence. At trial, in Skinner, the exhibit the surveyor prepared showed accurately where the truck tires were, road elevation, and highway curve. The exhibit spoke for itself, bringing the highway to life. The defendant no doubt knew the psychology of visuals. Effective visuals address responsibility, blame, and victimization. For instance, for personal responsibility, which means not blaming others for life’s challenges, visuals break down each separate, negligent act to show the plaintiff made choices.
In an accident, getting an independent witness to testify may tilt the weight of evidence to one side. In Skinner, the witnesses testified on the weather, road surface, and speed. The defendant had a helper and other witnesses who corroborated the defendant’s story, but the court found the witnesses’ testimonies to be cumulative to the physical facts from the exhibit.
Speak Your Mind