Court rules expert's reconstruction must be weighed against other witness testimony
Joseph Bondarenok was struck by a car driven by Katherine Nussbaum. Bondarenok was on a bike when he was hit, and apparently he was intoxicated. He claimed he stopped and looked both ways before attempting to cross the highway. Nussbaum claimed that she was doesn't believe she was speeding and that Bondarenok rode out in front of her with no warning. A police office behind her also testified that Bondarenok appeared not to have stopped for traffic. In opposition, Bondarenok offered reconstruction testimony from an engineer who calculated the length of Nussbaum's skid marks and concluded that she was speeding. The expert also concluded that if she had been traveling at the speed limit, Nussbaum could have stopped without striking Bondarenok. The trial court ruled that the engineer's testimony was speculation and granted summary disposition to Nussbaum. On appeal, the Court of Appeals explained that the engineer's calculations were based on admissible evidence and therefore they were not "speculative or conclusory." Therefore his testimony created a question of fact and the case should have gone before a jury to determine which evidence of causation was more credible.