Welcome to Jersey Justice, a
civil law podcast that shares
practical tips and stories about
personal and workplace injuries.
Join two of the brightest New Jersey
injury attorneys, Gerald Clark and Mark
Morris of Clark Law Firm, as they take
you behind the scenes of justice and civil
law, but first, a quick disclaimer, the
information shared on this podcast is
for general information purposes only.
Nothing on this site should be
taken as legal advice for any
individual case or situation.
This information is not intended
to create and does not constitute
an attorney client relationship.
Today, I'm here with Mark and
Stephanie, and we're going to be
talking about how fault is determined
in automobile accidents in New Jersey.
And also we're going to be talking
about accident reconstruction.
So welcome Mark.
Thanks for having us.
So I'm excited to talk about this topic.
Mark, why don't we start the conversation
off with the , potential client wants
to know how is fault actually determined
in an automobile accident because a
lot of times it can be a he said she
said thing unless there's a dash cam
or there's evidence like the previous
episode we just recorded, what are your
thoughts on that from a legal standpoint?
Sure, so 1 of the 1st steps, like,
anytime we take a case on or we're
investigating cases, we'll look at the
police report and the police support
isn't necessarily like a be all end
all of who's at fault for the crash.
But a lot of times there's a lot of good
things in there that that can be helpful.
, there's motor vehicle
codes that they have.
If you ever look at a
police report, there's.
Numbers all up and down the sidelines
and they're on the sides of the document
and throughout, and those different
numbers actually mean something like there
will be a code for driver inattention.
There will be a code if.
There was sun in the eyes
or anything like that.
So we'll almost always start by
looking at the police report.
You know, again, someone
may have gotten the ticket.
A lot of times we see a careless driving.
Sometimes you see reckless driving or
unsafe driving, but again, that ticket's
not automatically going to come in.
And a lot of times it doesn't
come in, in a personal injury
case, that's a big thing.
There'll be witness statements
every once in a while, but, but
really it comes down to, there's.
Only so many different types of
auto cases, you'll have like a
rear end hit a left hand crash.
Maybe someone runs a stop sign
runs through a red light or what?
And just kind of doing it over the years.
I know Stephanie can talk about it too.
Is you get a sense like if it's a
rear end collision, it's almost always
100 percent the defendant's fault.
I mean, I have case after case now
where it seems to be more of like a
relatively new phenomenon where instead
of just saying like, Hey, yeah, rear
end collision, they give an excuse.
Like one guy says my foot cramped, you
know, someone else was like the floor,
the mats came up and I couldn't hit
the brake pedal, just things like that.
But at the end of the day, New
Jersey law is pretty straightforward.
You're responsible for
what's in front of you.
You have to maintain a
safe following distance.
If someone stops in front
of you and you hit them.
It's almost always still your fault,
but sometimes that will come into play.
If there's like a stop short
allegation, like say it's a three
car pile up our cars in the middle.
If the car in front of them stop short,
and then the person behind our client
rear ended them, they hit into the car in
front, you know, every once in a while,
there could be a small percentage of fault
put on the person that stopped short, but.
That's not automatic, and then as crazy
as this is, even if you're going through
an intersection where there's a green
light going through an intersection
where you don't have a stop sign, you
still have an obligation to make proper
observations before you're going through.
So, pretty rarely, but every once
in a while, we'll see, like, if the
case goes to arbitration or something
like that, they could put some fault
on our client who went through a
green light or went through an.
Intersection without a stop sign,
just because he's still an obligation
to make proper observations.
I don't necessarily agree with that, you
know, and I'm sure Stephanie too, like if
we go to arbitration and our client's got
a green light mind in their own business,
and someone runs through a red light and
slams into him, like we showed in that
video clip before, I don't really think my
client should have done anything different
or, or what, but that's really it.
Um, at the end of the day, we've,
we've talked about to a lot, like
Jerry mentioned on one of the last.
Episodes, like if it's a rear end hit,
they'll still blame our client, like
throughout the case, say they should
make proper observations, whatever it
may be, and then get to trial and say,
Hey, you know what, we admit fault.
And that's not now because they're
trying to be like good guys.
There's strategic reasons behind that.
But that's really kind of it.
Starting points, the police report,
just from doing this, you know, there's
different jury instructions on different
mechanisms of how crashes occur.
And then sometimes too, like we'll even.
If I share my screen real quick, I could
show you like, there's a diagram every
once in a while in these police reports
that give an indication of what happened.
Um, let me know when you can see this.
All right, can you see what's up there?
Yeah, now we can.
All right, so this is vehicles
are numbered, you know,
vehicle one, vehicle two.
There's almost always a
description of what happened.
You know, it says like.
Driver 2 is traveling east, Highway 36,
vehicle 1 came on Eatontown Boulevard,
struck his vehicle on the driver's side.
Vehicle 1 then ran off the
road and struck a one way sign.
Driver 1 said he was crossing Highway 36.
Driver 1 said he thought he
had a green light signal.
So you move down to the police
report, it says multiple witnesses
in the area say that Driver 2 had
the green light, Driver 1 had the
red light, so that's a good fact.
In this case, because we've got driver tip
in this particular case, it says dash cam
video was also submitted on this case file
showing vehicle to had the green light,
which again, that's very helpful to us.
That's rare that that happens.
But so, in a case like that, where you've
got multiple eyewitnesses, you've got dash
cam footage, and it seems pretty clear
that vehicle 1 had a red light ran through
the red light and hit into our client.
I don't really see that being a case
where there would be much liability
that that could get, put on our client.
But again, last episode, we went
through, we read the discovery responses
from the defendant insurance company.
And they blame our client up and down, say
they should have watched, you know, where
they were going, follow motor vehicle
codes, all things like that, which,
which happens in, in all these cases.
So this one was a little bit more
straightforward than we're used to,
but sometimes if it's like a more
complicated case, or if it's a really
bad crash or really bad collision, like
fatalities or catastrophic injuries,
the police will bring out like a
fatal crash reconstruction unit that
does a way more detailed analysis.
Or we'll go out and hire an expert that
that does something along those lines.
I think Stephanie had a case
like a few years back, that
that she can talk more about.
But my understanding, I just.
Remember from talking with her about
it like it was a girl that was crossing
the road I think it was nighttime and
it was a really really like bad crash.
She got real hurt and I don't know enough
about it Stephanie you could tell like if
you guys had a good report like this So
I did have one of those cases that were
similar to what you're saying, which is we
received the case in from another attorney
and the police report was not really
favorable to our client and the other
attorney was like, I don't think this is
a case, but Once we started digging into
it, we realized that there was more to it.
And so what it involved was a young woman
and her friends were getting off a bus.
Over in freehold, maybe like three
to three in the morning, maybe
about three o'clock in the morning
and, , they got off the bus and they
were starting to cross route nine.
they were in a crosswalk.
But it was in dispute of whether
they had the right to cross and
whether the little person was lit
up telling them they could cross.
And what happened was a woman, she
worked for a paper delivery and she
had just picked up the papers and she
was on the way to go deliver them.
And she hit the first person
that my client was with.
And then she hit my client.
They went flying, severely injured.
They had to be airlifted.
My client had really bad injuries.
We got the police report.
They had to do what
Mark was talking about.
They had to do a detailed investigation.
A shoe was found here.
A piece of clothing was found here.
And it was all marked off,
and it was all measured.
And when it came to, it did appear as
if they were in the crosswalk, and they
were kind of about halfway into the
roadway, which is relevant for New Jersey.
So even if they would have had, even
if the other driver had the green
light, it was still relevant that
they were halfway into the crosswalk.
So we kind of did a little discovery.
Deposed the defendant and she was
this little tiny, tiny woman who could
barely see over the steering wheel.
So when we saw pictures of her car
inside her car, first of all, there was
just crap everywhere, drinks and stuff.
Papers were in the back and she had to
sit on a thing just to lift herself up
So I'm not sure whether she even saw
our clients when she was deposed This
is one of those cases where sometimes
it goes the right way when you have
a case that seems clear cut against
your client But this woman this driver
was not the least bit sympathetic.
She said I thought I hit a deer I
was the one that was up Meaning her,
she was the one that was so upset.
She didn't know what happened.
She thought it was a deer and, you
know, and I explained to her, well,
once you found out it was Two people
that you hit then what did you do?
She was oh, I was just so upset So it
was all about her which is super helpful.
I'll get to that second We did not have
to go to trial But it was going to be
helpful that she was not sympathetic
a jury would not be sympathetic to her
Just cut the way she portrayed herself.
So as we were doing a little bit more
digging That's when we learned, like I
said, see, seeing pictures of her car.
Hey, were you delivering newspapers?
And so then once that happened, then we
brought in the newspaper carrier and they
tried to say, Oh, she wasn't within our
control, but you know, you only have.
Access to her, you know, you're only
entitled to go after her car insurance,
which was only a hundred thousand dollars
So once we started doing some depositions
and the questions then surrounded whether
The the paper carrier controlled her
actions meaning that they told her what
time to pick up the papers They told
her exactly how to deliver the papers.
They told her what route to take and
so once we determined that then we were
able to bring the newspaper carrier
in We also had our own investigator go
out there and what he did, which was
kind of interesting because the other
driver was saying, Oh no, I was going
to speed limit, I wasn't going too fast.
And so what he did is one of the
things he went out and did an
analysis over like an hour.
hour and a half for three days and saw
that people normally go a certain speed.
And so we were able to see, Oh, okay.
So the normal person is going
10, 15 miles over the speed
limit during that time period.
So it was most likely that
she was also speeding too.
So that was super helpful
with respect to that.
Our client was a doll.
She was, like I said, she
was seriously injured.
She had a hard time getting
through her deposition.
So we just had to keep taking breaks
and keep walking her through it.
That case ended up settling for 500,
000, probably could have settled
maybe a bit more if the liability.
Was clear cut and that kind of goes along
with what Mark was saying in the beginning
if that would have been a case where she
was in a car and she was rear ended or
she clearly had the crosswalk sign and
she was driving and then this, I mean,
she was walking on the crosswalk and this
driver blew a red light, then it would
have been a whole different story, but
when you're settling it or when you're
going to trial, there is some liability
that is assessed against this Mike, our
client who It appears walked against a
red light, but it was still a very, very
good settlement for that type of case.
And Dimple too, I don't want to, I may
have just taken this for granted, but
like why it matters, like percentages of
fault, like Stephanie's talking about how,
like her client could have been blamed
for, you know, going against a red light.
Like if she was found more than
50 percent at fault, then she
would get nothing in the case.
And if there was like, you know,
the case went to trial and a jury
came back and gave a verdict where,
say they awarded 100, 000 and they
determined that Stephanie's client
was 30 percent at fault, like
she'd only be able to get 70, 000.
So the recovery gets discounted by
whatever percentage of fault you are.
And that's what.
The law is in New Jersey, like some
States, it's contributory negligence,
where if you're one iota at fault,
you get nothing like I had a case one
time that got transferred to Maryland.
That was the law down there,
which is really, really tough.
New Jersey's comparative
fault, which is good.
So as long as you're not more than 50
percent at fault, you can recover since
it appears she went against the crosswalk
indicating that she was free to go.
She could have most likely.
Then more than 50 percent at fault,
she was very happy with that, but
that was a case where originally when
we looked at the police report, it
seemed like, Oh, this is not a case.
This is not a good case.
The prior attorney had said now hands off.
And then once we kind of dug into
it a little bit more, got our own
investigator, did a lot of depositions.
Found out some little holes in the story.
You know, we actually actually deposed
the bus driver and everybody up to that
point had said, Oh yes, your clients,
they did not have the right away to walk.
The driver had a green light, but
this bus driver, he let them off.
And as he started pulling away.
I asked him, did you look up
and see what the light was?
And he said, yeah, I think it, I
think the other driver might've
had a red one, but I'm not sure.
So it gave me a little bit of a
doubt where it was like, okay,
everybody else is saying it.
She, the driver definitely had a green.
And then this bus driver was like,
no, she might've had the red.
And so then, which in our case created
a nice little question of fact, because.
Maybe my client didn't
go against the red light.
So little nuances like that are super
important and taking depositions and
finding little nuggets like that,
that can help your client and help
your case are why we do what we do.
So I was sitting here as you were
talking about, like doing the deposition,
this case was way pre COVID, right?
Like this was back in 2016.
So I picture because depositions
for the past three plus years
have all been over Zoom.
Like if that had been a depth over
deposition over zoom, you may have not
even known that she was this like five
foot, nothing person, like I'm seven
feet tall, I'm sitting in this chair
or I'm, you know, four foot eight.
There's no way to know.
So that probably made a big
distinction too, because it paints a
totally different picture, a totally
different analysis of the case.
Like if you're just picturing
someone going along, you're like,
what, like, what could happen?
But then you're picturing some
little old lady or just not
assuming she's old or what picturing
someone like down like that.
That's a totally different analysis.
And that's why also discovery is great
when you get photos of the, um, cause the
police did a really thorough investigation
and they had photos of her car.
And like I said, it was not only a mess,
but then there was a big pad on her seat.
I mean, like, like three phone books.
And I remember saying to her, do you,
do you need to sit on that to drive?
And she was like, yeah.
And then, So I think I literally
think that's exactly what happened.
She was this little tiny
lady could barely see.
And it was dark and you know,
they allegedly had dark clothing
on my client and a friend.
And this is like a little hype for
her, but she does such a good job
kind of peeling off like the layers
of the onion of cases like this.
Like she's saying, she took it over
from an attorney that rejected it.
And then goes and gets a half
a million dollar recovery.
And just even like talking about
noticing that there's a bunch of
newspapers in the car and like,
were you delivering newspapers?
Because if you're doing something in
the scope of your employment, that opens
up another potential layer of insurance
coverage, which is normally going to
be much higher than someone's just.
Personal auto coverage, so just to even
get into that ballpark of another layer
of coverage was a great step because
these crosswalk cases are not easy.
You talk about like
I had 1 where a girl was
crossing and same thing.
It was dark out.
I think she was going against
the light or came out.
She was going against the light, butshe was like:
through the intersection when she got hit.
So that was a fact that
was kind of helpful.
And the guy that hit her was like 88,
89 years old or something like that.
So that was kind of another factor
that was like, Hey, look, you know,
reasonable person probably would have
seen her it's kind of helpful there.
And then it, it matters to like
what the insurance coverage was.
I think in my particular case,
it was like a hundred thousand
dollars policy or maybe even less.
And she had a ruptured globe to her
eye, which is like a nasty injury.
And the insurance company, their
analysis is going to be, would
probably be more expensive to fight
that case than just to pay out.
Like Stephanie's case, it's like,
that's not like a, ah, here you
go type of money to give out.
Like that's a really, really good
result in a, in a tough case.
But I'll tell you another
kind of funny story.
I had a client who was also hit
in a crosswalk by another old
gentleman who was small and he
was properly in the crosswalk.
driver that hit him only
had a 15, 000 policy.
And I remember showing up
at the deposition and I was
like, what do you people do?
And why are you not tendering the 15?
He's like, ah, we probably
will after the deposition.
I said, all right, I'm deposing
the guy really nice old guy.
And so I'm kind of asking him
like, what were you doing that day?
And ended up coming out that
he was delivering auto parts.
I asked the question, were you in the
course and scope of your employment?
I phrased it a little bit differently.
Were you working at that time?
Had you just had delivering?
And he was like, Oh, yeah, yeah,
I was working and I remember his
counsel was like, you were working
and I was like, you were working.
Well, I mean that case ended up settling
for eight hundred thousand So had we
not dug that dug into that a little
bit and that was actually a really fun
one in the respect of the auto parts
place This guy had a punch in like
an old fashioned time punch card So I
requested all of his punch cards for
like a year before this incident, right?
And including the day of the incident,
every other time, every other
time the guy worked from 8 to 4.
30, but on this day, and it was an
actual punch out, but on this day,
he allegedly clocked out at 3 p.
And that was the only time
card in all of them that was
handwritten with the guy's initials.
So take it as you will, which I took it as
the auto parts place actually, you know,
it's said that he was clocked out at that
exact time before the incident, meaning
he wouldn't have been in the course and
scope of his employment at the time of.
That he hit my client.
That was like time card, time card.
It was probably 50, 60 time cards.
I had to show the guy and
each one was the same thing.
That was a good one.
That one settled for,
I think over 800, 000.
Like you can't help, but have these
like soapbox moments kind of when you're
doing this, like to call it, but like
play, everyone thinks plaintiff, you
picture like, Oh, the guy that goes and
slips on ice and it's like, Oh, great.
I'm going to go get like money
out of this, that example.
Just doesn't even really stand out
as something that ridiculous because
it happens in so many of these
cases, like construction cases.
You have to file motion after motion
to get like the contract for the job.
It could be like a multi
million dollar job.
And they're like, oh, there's no contract.
Oh, there's no safety plans.
And then 3 court orders later,
they're like, okay, here you go.
Here's the 200 page contract.
Here's, you know, 1000
site photos and like.
All our safety records, but it takes
like thing after thing after thing.
And what Stephanie is talking
about, there's sometimes it's
a jury charge that, that deals
with like spoliation of evidence.
Like if you get rid of evidence to try
and thinking it will help the case, like
the jury can be charged against that, but
like fabricating evidence or people think
that that could be, you know, it's going
to end up helping them out, but you get
good attorneys that pick up on that stuff
and dive into it and it backfires so bad,
or like it makes the case so much worse.
Like Stephanie picking up on that and
going exploring that, like everybody,
well, you would hope everybody sees
through that, what that is, and
like, that adds value to the case.
Like that doesn't mean the guy's
injury is worse or what, but like
everybody's analysis involves
what's a jury going to do.
Every way we look at a case is like,
what's going to happen at trial.
How would a jury perceive this?
It's one thing that the
guy got really hurt.
It's another, then that the defendants
in the case are trying to cover up
evidence to stop this guy from getting
like fair compensation for what happened.
Like that should piss people off.
Like that should get jurors like upset.
And like an angry jury for
us is like, is a good jury.
Yeah, that's a great point.
What I love is it's finding the loophole
and Stephanie's so thorough and Really
noticing the details of what matters in a
case like sometimes It's like the smallest
thing and someone else may overlook
that can make the biggest difference in
What's gonna be the outcome of that case?
So thank you for sharing that
Stephanie Yeah, those like,
what do you mean by that?
Or like, like, why do you say that?
Questions sometimes can open up such
like doors that you would never expect.
So that's just awesome.
And Mark, did you have anything else?
I think that's really it.
Like Stephanie talked about, it
looks like this was really thorough.
The client had taken a bunch of pictures.
It looks like we sent.
Multiple investigators out there,
one like early on in the case just to
document the area and then another.
I think, did you end up doing a
crash reconstruction in the case?
We didn't have to do a cross
reconstruction because the police
did a thorough got it direction.
Like I said, the point that helped
us in their crash reconstruction
was where the initial impact was.
was, and it showed the initial
impact was in the crosswalk
in the middle of the road.
And in New Jersey, if you are halfway
in the middle of the road in a
crosswalk, even if the driver has a
green light, they're obligated to stop.
Um, so it was very important for
us to show that they were in the
crosswalk and it happened almost
middle of the way through the road.
It all like comes down to as well,
again, again, I guess just jumping up
on a soapbox, like it's just fairness,
like who the heck hasn't crossed
at a crosswalk when there's a green
light, you look like, is it safe?
So that from what I would understand
about that, like, if you're halfway
through crosswalk, that doesn't just
give the oncoming driver card bonds
to the slam into you, you got to
make proper observation and there's
jury instructions up and down.
Like the law that the judge would read
to the jury at the end of the case about
whether someone's in a crosswalk, not
in a crosswalk, whether they've got the
right away or don't have the right away.
So it's not like, yup, you automatically
win just cause you're in a crosswalk
or Nope, you automatically lose
because you weren't in a crosswalk.
And I do have like, it would probably
take me a second to pull it up.
So it might not make sense, but the
idea of like what a crosswalk is
a lot broader than you would think
to, it's not just the actual, like.
Stephanie, when it comes to determining
fault in accidents, right, what
type of car accident is the most
difficult to prove who was at fault?
Is there a particular type?
Because like Mark was saying
earlier, you get hit from behind.
It's usually the person who hit him.
It's their fault.
But is there a particular scenario where
it is hard to determine who is at fault?
We actually have a new case right now
where both of them are saying that they
had the green light in an intersection
with our client saying she had a
green light, the other client saying
they had green light and they don't,
there's no cameras, the police, they
actually did not interview a lot of
the witnesses because they said they
didn't have time apparently, but there
were some witnesses that actually
witnessed that the other driver went
through the green light and we're
trying to find one of those witnesses.
So that one's going to be a
little bit more of a challenge.
We had an actual witness or a lot of
times they have the video cameras in the
intersection that makes it much easier,
but that's definitely a hard case.
A left turn case.
If our client's coming out and making
a left turn and somebody is coming from
their left, , I had one of those cases
was a few years ago and it was a really
nice old guy and he was coming out
and making a left and the other driver
hit him and automatically off the bat.
You would think, well,
your guy was making a left.
He should have, you know, and the other
woman had the proper right of way.
But once again, we kind of did a little
digging and she was on her way to school.
She was a school cafeteria aide.
And so I subpoenaed the records
for the school and showed that
she was supposed to get there.
a lot earlier than she was going
to be getting there, which kind of
supported our theory that she was
speeding up and over that hill.
That definitely helped.
And then we ended up settling
that case for the policy, but
those are definitely tough cases.
I think I covered a
deposition on that case.
I remember that.
Which again, that's awesome.
That's peeling back the onion layers.
I'm telling you, this isn't like, again,
soapbox and like self promotion, but
like, there's not a lot of attorneys and
law firms out there that are going to
take that extra step with an auto case
like that, that Stephanie just talked
about, like subpoenaing the defendant's
employment records to show that she was
late for work, that was a case from what
I recall, where like every case it's,
you know, who's at fault, what are the
injuries, what's the insurance coverage.
Almost always one of those things
is lacking, like are missing.
So I would imagine in that case, the
issue, the thing that was like, you know,
the biggest fight was probably liability.
So like a lot of people just go, nah,
you know, we'll settle this real cheap
or be like, we're not going to take
this case or take a deposition, but like
not go that extra step that Stephanie
went and by getting those records
again, like, ladies and gentlemen,
the jury, my client pulled out and the
defendant was speeding and hit her.
Like, whatever, like says you,
you're trying to get my ladies and
gentlemen, my client look both ways.
So no one was coming.
The defendant who works
at a school, she's late.
She's going downhill, you know,
comes out of nowhere, slams into
her, you know, slams into the client.
Like that's way more compelling.
And that's, again, I imagine probably
a huge reason why the defense in
that case settled, that's awesome.
I remember that case.
Cause he was a doll, a nice guy.
Which again, that matters too.
The, the insurance companies
are assessing everything.
Like we tell our clients when
they go to a deposition, number
one, just tell the truth.
That's the most important thing.
You have to be honest.
There's good facts, bad facts.
In any case we can deal with
it, but just don't lie because
that will ruin the entire case.
So we always tell the clients not to lie.
And then we explained to the deposition
is as much about seeing how they present
and like what kind of person they are.
As it is about finding out like
what they recall and what happened.
So like, it goes into every analysis
that the insurance companies do, like.
You know, if we settle a case
or a defense attorney calls up,
look, now your client's real nice.
They presented really
well at your deposition.
Like that matters.
That adds value to the case.
Like the guy that's just like,
you know, this, I can't believe
this jerk slammed into me.
Like, that's not, you don't want that.
And you can only prepare people so much.
Like it's organically going to come out,
what type of person that they are and that
will add or take value away from a case.
You can tell we've had a few
of these crosswalk cases.
If I have this, like.
Children's book looking diagram of
like what is and isn't the crosswalk,
but you can see here and a lot of
Mark and I were talking about it.
It's called the stop and say stopped.
It's basically the if you're halfway
into the crosswalk, like Mark
showing you that you got to stop.
Yes, I had the case actually this guy
who's a retired postal worker and like
every day he went on the same route
did the exact same walk every day for
I forget how many years so his career
was spent walking around neighborhoods
as a postal worker and then like and
his retirement his favorite activity
was going for like these morning walks.
And he stepped out in an area like
here where my mouse is where there's
not necessarily like a white line
crosswalk or crosswalk that looks
like what's shown there and he stepped
out from behind a telephone pole.
The defendant said and started
crossing here and he got hit
and he got hurt really bad.
I think he was in a coma like for a
couple of days and it was only 100, 000
insurance policy, but they were like
fighting on that and fighting on that.
And I yeah.
Got this little diagram,
I'm pretty positive.
This is from the New Jersey department
of transportation or website.
So this is actually
like a legitimate thing.
I think I used it as a deposition
exhibit and they ended up tendering
the full policy in the case.
We've talked about the last
episode, how awesome it is when
you have like dash cam footage.
Pictures and all that.
It's one thing to stand up there and
say, ladies and gentlemen, you don't need
white lines for it to be a crosswalk.
Even if you're just crossing at the end
of the street, that counts as a crosswalk.
It's one thing to say that it's another
thing to put up this illustration
and be like, here you go, guys,
people go to movies, like they love
looking at pictures, all that stuff.
There's a reason they're very effective.
That's a great example, Mark.
Yeah, thanks for sharing that
because it just lays it out
visually for everyone to see.
Stephanie, is there anything
else that you wanted to share?
Sometimes it's just a matter of digging
in and finding the little nuances and
finding the inconsistencies in somebody's
statement or examining a picture.
And then you, you take it from there.
Yeah, I would agree.
I would say I can probably count
on one hand, maybe two, like the
amount of times we've had to get
like a crash reconstructionist
or reconstruction expert.
If it's like a rear end hit,
there's no reason to do that.
So I don't want people listening to think
like, Oh, you know, I was rear ended.
Because usually it's a lot of money.
And if it's not going to tip the needle
one way or the other, it's just, it's
a waste of everyone's time and time
and money, because that's a lot of
times of balancing in a case like this.
If it's a close call and if it's like
a, he said, she said, it's not even
guaranteed that a crash reconstruction
is going to make a difference.
So you just got to be selective
on, on the case you use them.
And yeah, I think Stephanie spoke to that.
Yeah, that makes sense.
That makes sense.
Well, this has been a great episode.
Thank you so much.
And for our guests out there, if you
do have questions for us, you can
submit your questions to questions at.
com to have your question featured on the
show where we will be answering it live.
And there you have it, folks.
Another episode of Jersey Justice Podcast.
If you're loving what you're hearing,
it's time to hit that subscribe button
on Apple, YouTube, and Spotify podcasts.
And don't forget to
leave us a review online.
Share this podcast with your
friends and become their legal hero.
Dive into more episodes
at Jersey justice podcast.
com are Clark law and j.
And check out our show
notes for more information.
If you're navigating legal issues and
need a guiding light, or just a phone
call away, call us at 1 877 841 8855.
Again, 1 877 841 8855.
Until next time, Jersey justice
warriors stay empowered and informed.