menu

EXEMPLAR CASES

Since 1971, our staff has assessed in excess of 12,000 cases.
Below, we describe a few such cases:

CRIMINAL DEFENSE: “STAB WOUNDS: ATTEMPTED MURDER OR SELF-INFLICTION?”

People v. Defendant J.G.

The alleged victim (Mr. C.) has multiple stab wounds in the lower left side of his back. He claims that J.G., while riding a bicycle, allegedly stabbed him in the back. By comparing the stab wound with the manner in which the wounds allegedly occurred, our forensics team was able to prove several discrepancies in Mr. C.’s description of the incident. We demonstrated to the court that the victim’s story was inconsistent and his alleged wounds were, in fact, self-inflicted. After submitting our report, the murder charges were dropped.
CRIMINAL DEFENSE: “MAN CHARGED IN VEHICULAR MANSLAUGHTER DECLARED NOT GUILTY”

People v. Defendant F.

While making a left turn onto Avalon Blvd., Defendant F.’s 2003 Ford E350 collided with victim Z.’s bicycle, traveling eastbound on Gardena Blvd. Paramedics responded to the scene and pronounced victim Z. deceased. Defendant F. was charged with vehicular manslaughter because he had allegedly violated CVC 21801(a): making a left turn without yielding to the right-of-way. Our forensics team demonstrated that victim Z. was not within Defendant F.’s line of sight; and thus, Defendant F was not in violation of CVC 21801(a). Subsequently, the jury found Defendant F. not guilty.
CRIMINAL DEFENSE: “MAN FLEEING CHP GETS CHARGED FOR ATTEMPTED MURDER.”

People v. Defendant S.

While being pursued by the CHP, Defendant S. evaded capture and drove away from the scene on W. Street. Allegedly, he had hit a patrol vehicle in his flight from the scene, in an attempt to murder the CHP officers. After being called by his lawyer, our forensics team performed a detailed analysis. By calculating the allowable velocity of a 2009 Mercedes C300 at its maximum turning radius and reconstructing Defendant S.’s path of travel, we were able to disprove the allegation of attempted murder. Defendant S.’s attempted murder charge was dropped.
CIVIL CASE FOR DEFENSE: “MAN’S STORY OF INJURY PROVES TO BE IMPOSSIBLE”

Plaintiff C. v. Defendant SFG

At a sporting event in 2010, Plaintiff C. claimed that while walking through the tunnel to the seating area inside the stadium behind home plate, he was hit by a swinging door, causing him to fall and injure his back and knees. He claimed that the area was not well-illuminated and that someone on the other side had pushed the doors into him. Our team was called; and we performed a site inspection of the location, noting that the doors only swung in one direction, toward the interior of the stadium (the path Plaintiff C. was traveling at the time of the incident). We also performed lighting inspections and found that the stadium was illuminated according to code. We were able to conclude that the subject accident did not occur, and the case was settled for minimal money outside court.
CRIMINAL CASE: “DRIVER WITH DRUGS VINDICATED BY UNDOCUMENTED POLICE EVIDENCE”

People v. Defendant Y

On the day of the subject accident, the investigating officer concluded that Defendant Y. was attempting a U-turn on PCH in his Honda Accord and had collided with the left side of a Honda Prelude. However, Defendant Y. states that while traveling on PCH, he changed from lane No. 1 to lane No. 2 at the same time that an SUV changed from lane No. 3 to lane No. 2. He claims that the SUV hit the right side of his Accord, and he then instinctively swerved to the left in an attempt to avoid further contact. When our forensics team performed a site inspection, we noted that there was physical evidence to support Defendant Y.’s claim. Additionally, we noted that this evidence had not been documented by the investigating officer, nor had he questioned the defendant himself on the date of the accident. Based on hospital tests, Defendant Y. had traces of methamphetamine in his system; however he had tested at a minimal level, and this lower level of methamphetamine has few effects on cognitive functioning. Defendant Y.’s criminal charges were dropped.
CIVIL CASE FOR PLAINTIFF: “UNSECURED WHEELCHAIR CAUSES WOMAN TO ROLL OFF CAROUSEL”

Plaintiff H. v. Defendant WDC

Plaintiff H., who was in a wheelchair, was assisted onto a carousel by an attendant while at an amusement park. When the ride began, Plaintiff H.’s wheelchair rolled off the carousel, causing her to sustain numerous serious injuries. The attendant had placed the chocks next to the wheels of Plaintiff H.’s wheelchair instead of in front and behind the wheels and had promised to come back. However, she had never returned. The company’s policy clearly states where the chocks and wheelchair should be placed while riding. We opined that the company could have easily prevented the subject accident by having a second attendant double-check the security of all handicapped or disabled riders. At our inspection, we further noticed two other rides that had wheelchair capabilities that were not as tightly enclosed as they should have been to avoid riders rolling or falling off. Thus, we further opined that the company should fit or install a chariot of some kind that completely enclosed wheelchairs to prevent further accidents. The case settled out of court.
CIVIL CASE FOR PLAINTIFF: “SUV COLLISION RESULTS IN FIRE CAUSING FAMILY DEATH”

Plaintiff A. v. Defendant Bhandal Brothers Trucking

A tractor-trailer, illegally parked without lights or flairs on the shoulder of a freeway in the early-morning (dark) hours, was struck by an SUV towing a trailer and carrying a family. The SUV caught fire, and mother, father, and infant perished in the fire. We were hired by the surviving family members (two young children) to evaluate the case. Our analysis revealed that the SUV veered to the right shoulder for reasons out of the driver’s control, including but not limited to a loss of tire pressure in one of the trailer’s tires, hitting an object in the road, any other mechanical problems, a possible medical emergency, and/or microsleep. We also determined that the driver of the tractor-trailer failed to place warning triangles behind his truck and failed to activate his hazard lights, violating the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulation. We also noted facts of the case which directly contradicted the tractor-trailer driver’s testimony regarding the events before, during, and after the subject accident. A jury trial reached a verdict in favor of the Plaintiffs in excess of $150,000,000.
CIVIL CASE FOR DEFENDANT: “SLIP AND FALL ACCIDENT”

Plaintiff P. v. Defendant G.

In the middle of winter, a woman was walking down her sloped driveway, which was covered in ice, when she slipped and fell. Our analysis revealed that the paved, sloped driveway was not in violation of any applicable building codes. Furthermore, we determined that the Plaintiff, who had lived at that residence for over one year prior to the subject accident, had prior knowledge that the driveway was slippery on the date of the subject accident, as her ex-husband testified that he had slipped on the driveway earlier that same day and had complained to the Plaintiff about it. Finally, Plaintiff had an alternate route: a dirt path adjacent to the driveway, which would not have been a slip hazard. A jury trial reached a verdict in favor of the Defendants.
CIVIL CASE FOR DEFENDANT: “SLIP AND FALL ACCIDENT”

Plaintiff B. v. Defendant T.

A woman entered a store on a rainy morning and, after walking across the carpeted entrance area, slipped and fell on the tiled floor. Surveillance videos showed that at the time of the subject accident, two open and obvious yellow warning cones were placed on the tile floor just past the carpeted area and in front of the cash registers. Plaintiff claimed that she did not see any cones prior to her fall; thus, we concluded that the Plaintiff’s inattentiveness contributed to the subject accident. Furthermore, the surveillance video depicted a store employee cleaning the area of the subject accident just 6 minutes prior to the subject slip-and-fall accident. We concluded that the store met and exceeded the standard of care with regard to the inspection and maintenance of the area of the subject accident. A jury trial reached a verdict in favor of the Defendant.
CIVIL CASE FOR DEFENDANT: “TRIP AND FALL ACCIDENT”

Plaintiff F. v. Defendant C.

A woman who was entering a bank’s ATM vestibule tripped and fell on the transition between the mat immediately inside the entrance and the surrounding tiled floor. An interview of the bank manager confirmed that the floor mat, which was embedded in the floor, and the surrounding ceramic tile had not been changed since the date of the accident. Our site inspection revealed that the embedded floor mat and adjacent ceramic tile were in excellent condition. The height difference at the transition was measured at ⅛ to ¼ inch in the area of Plaintiff’s fall and was determined to be compliant with the applicable building code. We concluded that there was no dangerous condition present at the transition between the embedded floor mat and the ceramic tile flooring. The case quickly settled.
CIVIL CASE FOR PLAINTIFF: “MAN CHARGED IN HIS OWN ACCIDENT PROVED INNOCENT”

Plaintiff J. v. State of California

While traveling on a curved road that connected freeways, Plaintiff J. experienced a loss of control; and his vehicle zigzagged, went over a raised median, and rolled over. Although the initial police report alleged that this incident was caused by an unsafe speed of travel (CVC 22350), our forensics team showed that the connector road was lacking a guard rail and barrier device to protect motorists from a steep drop of elevation. Furthermore, had the subject connector road been properly furnished with the Advisory Speed on a Curve and Turn warning sign, as well as the chevron markers on a guardrail along the left side, the Plaintiff would have had sufficient time to perceive and react, and could have avoided the subject accident.

CONTACT US






DROP US A MESSAGE

Please don't hesitate to contact us. Our staff will answer your questions as soon as possible.

Our location

Address

5324 Canoga Ave.
Woodland Hills, CA
91364

Contact us by phone

Phone

818-348-1133
800-429-9938
818-348-4484 (Fax)