In the case of Sona v. Curcio, No. 2024-CV-1194 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Oct. 16, 2026, Nealon, J.), the court denied a pre-trial motion by the Defendant seeking to preclude an accident reconstruction expert for the Plaintiff from testifying at trial in this motor vehicle accident case. The court additionally denied a related Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the defendant.
According to the Opinion, this matter arose out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred as the defendant-driver was making a right hand turn.
The accident occurred in an area where there was one lane in each direction and a center turning lane.
The Plaintiff alleged that, as she was traveling in the travel lane, the defendant allegedly made a right hand turn from a center turning lane and across the front of the plaintiff’s vehicle.
The defendant driver denied the Plaintiff’s allegations and asserted that he was traveling in front of and in the same lane as the Plaintiff leading up to the accident. The defendant driver asserted that the Plaintiff’s vehicle hit his vehicle as the defendant made his right hand turn.
In a pre-trial motion in limine presented to the Court for a decision here, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s accident reconstruction expert’s Opinion was not competent as it was allegedly not based on facts in evidence. After a review of the record, the court disagreed and ruled that the Plaintiff’s liability expert would be allowed to testify at trial.
Relative to the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the defendant, the court found that issues of fact precluded the entry of judgment. As such, that Motion was denied as well.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
The Plaintiff alleged that, as she was traveling in the travel lane, the defendant allegedly made a right hand turn from a center turning lane and across the front of the plaintiff’s vehicle.
The defendant driver denied the Plaintiff’s allegations and asserted that he was traveling in front of and in the same lane as the Plaintiff leading up to the accident. The defendant driver asserted that the Plaintiff’s vehicle hit his vehicle as the defendant made his right hand turn.
In a pre-trial motion in limine presented to the Court for a decision here, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s accident reconstruction expert’s Opinion was not competent as it was allegedly not based on facts in evidence. After a review of the record, the court disagreed and ruled that the Plaintiff’s liability expert would be allowed to testify at trial.
Relative to the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the defendant, the court found that issues of fact precluded the entry of judgment. As such, that Motion was denied as well.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.