The case before me is not dissimilar to Au v. Carnegie, where a truck driver struck a left-turning car in a busy Calgary intersection. The driver of the car alleged that the truck had been speeding when it approached the intersection. The expert testimony of three accident re-constructionists could not conclusively establish the truck had been speeding, in part because of lack of evidence from the scene of the collision and the resulting necessity for the experts to assume many variables, such as friction coefficients. In addition, all three experts concurred that even if the truck driver had been speeding, he would not have been able to avoid the accident in time. Coutu J. at para. 123 dismissed the evidence of speed as “speculation” and absolved the dominant driver of liability.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.