- #1
Depruncil
- 1
- 0
Hi there! I am in need of assistance, please. My son was involved in a car accident, in which there was an obstacle in the road that caused traffic to suddenly stop, unexpectedly. He (from what he tells me) was paying attention and was slowed almost to a stop, when he was struck from behind by a truck that was moving at about 30 mph. The driver of the truck admitted that she had turned around and was talking to her child in the back seat and didn't notice that the traffic has stopped. My son was forced into the car in front of him, thus causing a three vehicle accident. However, the driver of the car in front stated that he felt two bumps and believes that my son hit him and then he was hit again when the truck rear-ended my son. Nobody else believes this to be true, but the officer cited my son for failure to control speed, based on this man's testimony. All other witnesses state that my son was hit first. I am a social worker, not a physicist, so I am not sure, but I feel like it is very possible and even likely that my son would have bumped the car in front of him twice if he was nearing a stop and was hit from behind, by a larger vehicle, at a rate of speed of 30 mph. I think that logically a car would hit and then rebound and hit again. But the officer argued that he has worked accidents for 20 yrs and that my theory is not true. Also, based on the amount of damage on my son's car, it seems obvious to me that he did not hit the car in front of him first or with any amount of speed, as the front of my son's vehicle is virtually undamaged--just a couple of minor scratches and dings--while the rear of his vehicle is completely trashed. The frame is bent and the car is totaled. The car in front had significant damage to rearend and the truck in the back was damaged beyond drivability. I don't know why I believe that the lack of damage to the front-end of my son's car leads me to believe that he was not moving at any rate of speed when he made contact with the car in front, and why it makes sense to me that it proves he was pushed into the car, rather than striking it while moving, but for some reason, that is seems obvious to me. Can anyone tell me if these assumptions are true, and if so why? And who would I need to enlist to examine the vehicle to present this theory (as an expert) in court, if it is correct? Thanks!
