We, in Nevada, have been battling with accident reconstructionists for years now. You know how it is: the defense in a personal injury accident case hires an accident reconstructionist who, "surprisingly", renders an opinion that the accident was a minor impact collision. Yeah....BIG shock there. Oftentimes, these accident reconstructionists feel it appropriate to render biomechanical and/or medical opinions that no one could possibly have been hurt in the accident . Just more evidence that they will render an opinion favorable to their masters. In one case, two reconstructionists working for the same firm were retained by adverse parties in the same accident and, using the same software, came to opposite conclusions as to how the accident occurred....kinda shows that it is an art rather than a science controlled by input to obtain the desired result.
It has always been our position at Cap & Kudler that accident reconstructionists are not qualified to render an opinion as to speeds of vehicles based on photographs alone. That is the law here in Nevada. While we don't follow Daubert (or even Frye), we look to the same issues as those, and similar, cases discussed.
I find it amazing that an accident reconstructionist can allegedly measure the depth of penetration of a dent merely by looking at the pictures. When you look a the calculations, minor changes in the size and depth of a dent can greatly effect the results of the formula calculating the speed of vehicles at the time of impact.
One last story. I once had an accident reconstructionist opine and testify that my client's car was only moved an inch or two by the accident. My client and the Defendant both testified that there was at least a foot of movement. When asked about the discrepancy between the calculated movement and the actual movement as testified to by those actually at the accident, the his calculation was right regardless of the facts.
/s Donald Kudler