The state Superior Court has revived a claim stemming from a fatal motor vehicle-pedestrian accident, ruling that the trial court improperly weighed the evidence before it and discounted possibly viable plaintiffs experts in dismissing the defendants on a grant of summary judgment.
In an opinion penned by Judge David N. Wecht, the unanimous three-judge panel did not specifically credit or weigh any of the evidence, but rather decided that a jury question as to liability remained in play after speculating about what additional evidence might show and what a jury might conclude. The evidence of record so far in Wright v. Eastman includes the defendant’s own testimony that he didn’t see the woman he hit until she was about two car lengths away, one plaintiffs expert who offered a "conservative" opinion about the distance at which the driver should have seen the woman, Patricia Carlin, and another expert who opined on how much distance the driver should have needed to abruptly stop.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
