Additionally, properly qualified officers may also give testimony as to what would have been a “reasonable and prudent speed” at the location and circumstances at issue during the accident. ( Hart v. Wielt (1970) 4 Cal.App.3d 224, 230; Enos, supra, 158 Cal.App.2d at p. 399.) In Hart, a CHP officer testified what would be a reasonable speed in and around the area of the accident. ( Hart, supra, 4 Cal.App.3d at pp. 228-229.) First, the CHP officer was qualified to provide such an opinion because the officer “had been in the Highway Patrol for 13 years, had extensive training and schooling in accident investigations (including proper speeds under various conditions), and had investigated more than one accident weekly.” ( Id.) Then, the officer testified that if the road was wet due to snow and ice, a “reasonable speed” in and about the area of the accident would be 10-15 miles per hour and that “a person driving under these conditions, in and about the area of the accident, at a speed of 30-35 miles per hour [i.e., the defendant’s estimated speed], could anticipate he might slip, slide, and have an injury accident.” ( Id. at p. 229.) This testimony was allowed because an officer who has spent years investigating accidents and who was required to make official reports with both the facts and potential causes of the accidents “is an expert,” and the officer’s opinions go to weight and not admissibility. ( Id.at pp. 229-230 , citing Kastner v. Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority (1965) 63 Cal.2d 52, 57 .) Penalty points for editing errors (spelling, grammar, punctuation, etc.), for children who act too mature or too young for their age (this is a bugbear of mine), or if there is something in the book that just really pisses me off for any reason. Bonus points if I can't put the book down, it makes me feel strong emotion, or genuinely surprises me in some way.

In this article you will learn how to qualify an officer as an expert, and how to introduce at trial opinions regarding point of impact, speed of the vehicles before impact, what constitutes reasonable speed under the circumstances, sobriety/intoxication of the parties, and any other factors contributing to the accident. For a traffic officer to testify as to an estimate of the approximate speed of the involved vehicles, the following factors are analyzed: (1) “a known relationship between speed and the objective results” of the automobile accident; (2) the traffic officer’s knowledge and experience, and (3) the facts observed by the traffic officer after the collision. ( Crooks v. Pirrone (1964) 228 Cal.App.2d 549, 552.) If each of these factors is proven “to the satisfaction of the trial judge such a person could in a proper case give his opinion as to speed.” ( Ibid.) Remember that when you are building an application, designing a home, installing a pool or making your next sale. Fall in love with the problem, not your solution. Refocus your attention and time on the problem, not your solution.When you do, you will begin to understand the fundamentals of Design Thinking and more importantly, you will begin to apply the style of thinking enthusiastically to every problem, regardless of what it is.The compassion shown by her and her team was so uplifting but the cost to them personally of trying to fight against an out-dated and struggling system was also deeply upsetting. Q: What is your best estimate of the number of accidents where you determined [points of impact, speed, etc.]? I do like these true stories and reading about other peoples work stories, NHS ones I have been reading/buying as a go. This one is a wee bit different, Doctor Laura Marshall-Andrews gives us an insight into her journey as a doctor.

I felt lesser but still significant disquiet over her prescribing of fentanyl lollipops to a young man who claimed that nothing else worked for him; for this, and perhaps for her unorthodox outlook in general, she finds herself summoned to a Performance Advisory Group — a disciplinary panel run by NHS England — a trial that she candidly recounts in the book. The effects of intoxicants, and even alcohol, are “sufficiently beyond [the] common experience of most jurors [such] that expert testimony is required.” ( Hernandez v. County of Los Angeles (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1599, 161; Pedeferri v. Seidner Enterprises (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 359, 374; and see Evid. Code, § 801, subd. (a).) But remember, testimony of a party’s drug use may be inadmissible if the use did not contribute to the accident or damages. ( Hernandez, supra, 226 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1615-1617 [expert testimony deemed irrelevant and improper where there was no evidence the deceased’s alleged marijuana use contributed to the initial collision or the deceased’s death the following day].) Her compassion and empathy are obvious but she’s not frightened to look critically at the structures we’ve created around the practice of modern medicine. There are sharp barbs here for the likes of the CQC and the Medicines Management Team, who take her to a performance review for prescribing the only drug that helps her patient. What Seems to be the Problem is a revelation. It shows that without spending multi millions, individuals and community healthcare practices can make a huge difference to the way healthcare is delivered in the UK. Dr. Laura Marshall-Andrews is a rare individual who has taken the giant leap to radically change her approach to GP care at a personal level and in the way her group practice was organised. It’s not an easy ride but her resilience and fortitude, underpinned by her belief that the current model doesn’t work, has really delivered.I knew someone in the customer-service who actually did say "What's your problem?" to people who approached (who didn't approach again if they could help it). What I am increasingly aware of the longer I practice medicine is that traditional models of care are not working.” These cases show that an officer with the proper qualifications can testify as to reasonable speeds of the vehicles involved to an accident. For liability, point(s) of impact will usually make or break Plaintiff’s case. Only officers who possess “expert qualifications can express an opinion as to point of impact.” ( Waller v. Southern Cal. Gas Co. (1959) 170 Cal.App.2d 747, 752.)

In sum, officers may be called to give expert testimony regarding a variety of factors affecting causation and liability. Evidence Based Medicine knows it doesn’t always have the answers and should remember it is designed for populations not individuals - but that is too often forgotten. Dr Marshall-Andrews reminds us. For example I’m no fan or believer of homeopathy but the author explains (and convinces me) that sometimes a good therapist with a good placebo can achieve when others fail. Q: With those tire marks being Defendant’s, were you able to determine the point of impact between XXX and XXX? I learned, even for an Account Director in a sales position, Design Thinking could be utilized in everyday life.Previously, I thought only creative people (Digital Designers, UI/ UX designers, Mobile and Web Designers, Artists and Creative Marketing Leaders) would utilize Design Thinking.I learned that Design Thinking is not something one does, but rather a style of thinking that combines empathy, creativity and rationality to “fit solutions” to the problem, whatever it may be. Another example, in Neumann v. Bishop (1976) 59 Cal.App.3d 451, an officer was able to opine that there was no evidence of “excessive speed” of a plaintiff. The foundation for the officer’s opinion was: (a) his qualifications were provided; (b) there was no physical evidence to give any indication of excessive speed; (c) there were no skid marks or markings on the pavement; and (d) the amount of physical damage the officer observed did not indicate plaintiff was driving faster than 35 miles per hour. ( Id. at p. 460.) The posted speed limit where the accident occurred was 25 miles per hour, not 35 miles per hour, so defendant objected, claiming the officer’s opinion wrongfully convinced the jury that plaintiff was free from wrongdoing. ( Id. at pp. 460-461.) But, the Court admitted the opinion, finding that the defendant’s objections were not tenable because the jury was instructed on the issue of contributory negligence with the speed limit being 25 miles per hour. ( Id. at p. 461.)The book wasn't predictable in terms of relying on tired tropes, clichés, themes, stereotypes, etc. ✅ Officers frequently provide opinions as to speed. Several cases have noted that an officer “whose duties include the investigation of automobile accidents may qualify as an expert entitled to give an opinion respecting the speed of automobiles involved in an accident, based on his observations obtained in the course of his investigation thereof.” ( Davis v. Ward (1963) 219 Cal.App.2d 144, 148; Enos v. Montoya (1958) 158 Cal.App.2d 394, 399 [noting that because jury’s knowledge of the subject roadway must be limited to that shown by the evidence, it cannot be said that a prudent speed on the subject curve “was a matter exclusively within the jury’s fact finding power which should not be ‘invaded’ by opinion evidence”].) Whether an officer has sufficient qualifications to give an opinion regarding the speed of the vehicles involved in the accident is “a matter committed to the sound discretion of the trial court.” ( Davis, 219 Cal.App.2d at p. 148.) I found this book utterly inspirational. I know Dr Marshall-Andrews and the staff are not alone in their desire to bring about the best outcome for people who are suffering from both physical and mental ill health but I'd like to buy this book for all the doubters in the medical profession -- those who still believe that pills are the only answer.