The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of a personal injury claim arising from a motor vehicle accident.
The motion relied in part on an expert human factors report opining that one independent witness’s recollection was more reliable than another’s.
The court held that the report improperly intruded on the role of the trier of fact by effectively assessing witness credibility and preferring one account over another.
Given conflicting eyewitness evidence and credibility issues suitable for a jury, the court found that the matter required a trial.
The motion for summary judgment was dismissed with costs.
