The plaintiffs in three related lawsuits arising from a fatal head-on automobile accident brought summary judgment motions to determine liability.
All parties agreed that liability could be determined by summary judgment but held diametrically opposed positions on who was liable.
The court found that the existence of competing expert accident reconstruction reports, particularly those based on computer simulations with unknown reliability, created genuine issues of material fact regarding causation.
The court also noted an "air of reality" to the contention that the deceased plaintiff's distracted driving might have contributed to the collision, despite a prior Highway Traffic Act conviction against one of the defendants.
Consequently, the motions for summary judgment were dismissed, as a full trial with oral testimony and cross-examination was deemed necessary to resolve the complex factual disputes and competing expert opinions.
