helpful. We successfully argued in motions in limine to be able to talk about the driver leaving the scene after driving over the sleeping woman. Our next witness was our retained crash reconstructionist. He performed a total scan of the garbage truck with the same FARO technology used by EPD and was able to utilize their scans from the parking lot to make a three-dimensional computer model of the scene. The garbage truck’s path that morning was captured on the security camera of a local arcade bar. Through reverse projection photogrammetry, our reconstructionist was able to align the video with the 3-D scans of the parking lot and then place the scanned garbage truck into the model. Our expert also mapped out the dimensions of the backup camera and modeled a bright green cone coming off the back of the garbage truck representative of the camera’s field of view. By doing this, our expert showed the jury exactly when the sleeping woman entered the garbage truck driver’s field of view as it traveled through the parking lot. By calculating the speed of the garbage truck off the security video, our expert was also able to determine the woman was visible to the driver for seven seconds in his backup camera before he turned and ran her over. This was the most important evidence to prove liability in the case. The defense was unsuccessful in attacking the evidence on cross examination. Still, we knew another argument would be the contrast or visibility of a body in the garbage truck’s backup camera. Even if she was visible, was she noticeable? To answer that, we called another EPD officer involved in the reenactment who rode inside the cab of the truck. He testified that the backup camera screen in the truck made it easy to see a person behind the driver’s path. Although we thought we established liability against the garbage company, there was concern for comparative negligence against the sleeping woman. To address the drug and alcohol concerns we gathered from voir dire, we called the medical examiner from Lane County. He was able to rule out drug and alcohol intoxication at time of death. We also called the investigator from the medical examiner’s office who was involved in collecting evidence at the scene. Her testimony gave us a surprise benefit when Yolken asked her to describe a scene photograph of the victim’s body. It was understandably graphic and we struggled to decide how to get the evidence into the case without offending the jury. Through happenstance, Yolken asked the witness to describe the photo, expecting a one sentence answer allowing him to enter it into evidence. Instead, she gave a detailed description to the jury of exactly what she was looking at and the condition of the victim’s body in a way the jury could understand the terrible nature of the fatal injuries without having to see first-hand. We entered these photos into evidence, placed in an envelope with a warning on the outside. I don’t know if the jury ever opened it, but it was an effective way to deal with graphic evidence I plan to use in the future. To address other concerns of comparative negligence, we subpoenaed several fact witnesses whom we thought could explain why the victim would be sleeping in the middle of a dark parking lot. A big problem for us was there was a well-lit homeless services location just a half block away at a nearby church. First, we called two Crisis Assistance Helping Out On The Streets workers. CAHOOTS is a mobile crisis intervention program staffed by personnel from White Bird Clinic, an organization providing health services to unhoused and vulnerable people. In Lane County, CAHOOTS workers are held in extremely high regard for the difficult work they do. “Oregon law does not assign value to the loss of human life for its own sake. Rather, ORS 30.020 provides recovery for the loss of society, companionship and services to the decedent’s family.” See Fighting for the Unhoused p. 20 19 Trial Lawyer | Fall 2024
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy Nzc3ODM=