CASE STUDY: Eyewitness Reliability Related to Signal Light Status

The "big deal so what" here is that witness observations are not infallible no matter how straightforward the observation.

Crash reconstruction practitioners commonly deal with eye witness statements. Such statements are frequently found in reports from law enforcement, recorded statements from insurance claims specialists, affidavits or declarations collected by attorneys, and actual testimony, either in deposition or trial.

It has been my experience, as I'm sure many will attest, that eyewitness testimony is heavily relied upon by attorneys. Common arguments supporting the witness' veracity include: they weren't involved so their recall can be trusted, what reason would they have to fabricate such a story, or there is no way they could have been fooled considering the circumstance. And, when a reconstruction practitioner concludes that the eyewitness was mistaken, some common responses include: are you calling the witness a liar, you weren't there, so how could you know, or isn't it more likely that your reconstruction is wrong?

As a reconstructionist, it can be discomfiting to call the recollection of an eye-witness into question. In such circumstances, even the most confident reconstructionist may hesitate to suggest, much less state with firmness, that a witness was wrong. Indeed, some reconstructionists may be inclined to torture their analysis until it conforms to the witness' recollection of events in order to avoid a confrontation.

As someone who has been a crash reconstruction practitioner since the early '90s, I've learned to approach the recollection of witnesses to a crash with healthy skepticism. It has been my experience that eyewitnesses, particularly those observing a highly dynamic crash unfold, tend to misperceive what is happening and at times will substitute what they "think" happened because they simply can't comprehend it with the limited data they could gather as the crash unfolded in the blink of an eye.

As a general rule, I focus on analyzing the physical evidence first without any reliance on witness statements. That does not mean I avoid reviewing witness statements entirely, only that I consider them secondary to the physical evidence. Once a comprehensive analysis of the physical evidence has been completed, it is time to bring in the witness statements. If a witness makes an observation that comports with the analysis, then, at least regarding that specific observation, the witness can be considered correct or reliable. If a witness makes an observation that does not comport with the analysis, then the witness can be considered mistaken or unreliable, at least regarding that specific observation. If a witness makes an observation that can't be corroborated, then "it is what it is."

Finding that a witness was mistaken in their observation, does not mean they are lying or acting nefariously (a topic beyond the scope of this case study). It may just mean that they simply did not observe the event as it happened. Or, they observed the event but could not fully comprehend it, and, in their mind, they did their best to reconstruct what happened and ultimately decided what they reconstructed was reality.

The present case involves an urban intersection collision where signals fully control traffic (see linked report above). Unit 1, a 2019 Tesla Model 3 sedan, was traveling westbound on W 2nd Ave. Unit 2, a 2004 Volkswagen Passat station wagon, was traveling southbound on S Monroe St. A not-to-scale scene diagram is provided below.

The narrative on page 2 of the report makes it clear that "witness Gateley" was standing in the southeast corner of the intersection and told the investigating officer that Unit 1, the Tesla, "had a red light." The officer then notes that the driver's side sun visor in Unit 1 was down and that the sun was very bright at the time of the incident. Ultimately, the driver of Unit 1 was determined to be the at-fault driver.

Doubtless, the investigating officer believed the eyewitness, and one can imagine the officer's thought process being something along the lines of, "how could an eyewitness get something so simple wrong?" Indeed, how could the eyewitness get such a simple observation wrong? The witness should have had a perfect view of the lights from their vantage point.

As it turns out, Unit 1 had a dashcam that captured the entire incident (see video below).

As you can see, the video is 7 seconds long, and the entire event takes about six seconds. Further, the crash dynamics are nothing to sneeze at as the left side tires on Unit 2 are elevated to what would appear to be the level of the hood of Unit 1.

A video frame was captured immediately pre-impact that clearly shows the green light for Unit 1's direction of travel (see image below).

A post-impact video frame was also captured that demonstrates Unit 1 had the green light and Unit 2 had a red light (see image below).

Clearly, the perfectly positioned un-involved eyewitness got the straightforward observation of light status 100% wrong.

Over the years I have had a number of cases where a witness was relied upon to provide evidence that one vehicle had a green light and the other had the red. In the absence of video evidence like what was available for this matter, there is no way to corroborate the eyewitness' observation, so, as they say, "you get what you get." However, this case study should lead the reasonable reconstruction practitioner to assess what would be considered straight-forward and thus "definitive" or "incontrovertible" witness observations with healthy skepticism. The "big deal so what" here is that witness observations are not infallible no matter how straightforward the observation.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The materials for this case study were provided to me by attorney Jed Barden of Spokane, WA. I was not working on this matter for Mr. Barden but had discussed the fallibility of witness observations with him as part of my work on another matter.