Personal Injury:  

In this instance, the occupant of a car turns off the traveled highway onto the access road to housing for the purposes of visiting relatives.

After approximately 50 yards of traveling a large Canary Island date, palm fails in its entirety and crashes upon plaintiff’s vehicle.  There are eyewitnesses to the matter. The vehicle is totaled and the plaintiff is injured.

The facts in this matter were pictures taken in the after situation of the alleged failure of the subject tree along with eyewitness accounts which support plaintiff’s assertions.

Upon studying closely the pictures entered into discovery the following facts were presented in defendant’s expert’s deposition:

  1. When a palm tree of the size subject to this matter weighs well over one ton.
  2. When a palm tree of this weight and height hits a vehicle, the vehicle is stopped dead in its tracks; perhaps dragging the palm tree a couple of feet.
  3. However, pictures and evidence showed two debris fields; not one, which could only have occurred when a tree of this size hits a slow-moving vehicle. There is testimony that the vehicle was traveling at approximately 10 mph when the alleged incident occurred.  One debris field is separated by a length of approximately 100 feet from the next debris field.
  4. Because defendant’s expert is not an accident reconstructionist, this statement is challenged and there is a probability the opinion will not be heard in court.
  5. But there is another anomaly associated with plaintiffs pictures of the damaged vehicle: the subject tree is a Canary Island date palm; however, the tree debris in the subject vehicle is from another species of palm tree.
  6. Eyewitness testimony is discovered to have been produced by a relative of the plaintiff.

The Matter settled after my deposition.