Court Appearance - Feb. 20, 2006
Trial Name: Rennie ats Darling
Ontario Superior Court Of Justice
Trial Held at: 80 Dundas Street, London
Presided by Madame Justice Templeton
Trial Commencement Date: February 20, 2006
Trial Details
Gorski Consulting was retained by Mr. Douglas Byrce of Siskinds Law Firm, London, to assess a head-on collision between a 1990 Chrysler Dynasty operated by his client, Mrs. Moya Darling, and a 1991 Dodge Van, operated by Mr. David Rennie. It was reported that at approximately 1730 hours of November 21, 2001, Mrs. Darling was traveling eastbound on Hamilton Road, just east of Dorchester, Ontario. As Mrs. Darling traveled around a left bend in the roadway her vehicle collided with Mr. Rennie’s van that had been traveling westbound. Mrs. Darling reported that Mr. Rennie’s van entered her lane and in an attempt to avoid a head-on collision she braked and steered to the left. She reported that Mr. Rennie's vehicle also returned to his own lane and that was where the collision occurred. Gorski Consulting was asked to review this matter and provide an opinion whether the collision could have occurred in the manner described by Mrs. Darling.
In proceeding with our assessment we reviewed witness and driver statements, transcripts from Examinations for Discovery and police investigation documents. We attended the collision site where tests were performed to demonstrate the time and distance that each driver had to view each other’s vehicles before impact. We conducted further testing using a protractor attached to the steering wheel hub of a test vehicle and we videotaped the steering wheel rotations as the vehicle traveled through the curve. This data provided information on the steering inputs required by Mrs. Darling as she traveled through the curve. We demonstrated that during the latter part of the curve Mrs. Darling would have to commence a second steering motion to the left in order to maintain her vehicle within her lane. We opined that such an action might not have been carried out if it would place her into the path of the Rennie vehicle. By not commencing a second left-steering-action this could cause her vehicle to travel onto the right shoulder. This could have caused a loss of control which could have taken her into the opposing lane. Assuming her pre-impact speed was near the speed limit we opined that it was unlikely that her vehicle could have achieved the substantial change in pointing angle along with a substantial change in direction toward impact from just a steering input alone.
During testimony at trial we were informed of testimony provided by an experienced police reconstructionist that no tire marks were found in the right shoulder shortly after the collision. We opined that such a mark should have been visible if Mrs. Darling had lost control on that shoulder. We were also provided with further information about the Rennie van, including its much larger mass than what was initially assumed. This new information allowed us to study the post-impact motions of the vehicles. The opposing expert, Mr. James Surowiak, opined that the post-impact velocity of the Rennie vehicle westward was in the general range of 50 km/h and we agreed with that assessment. However, given the damage to the vehicles and the injury consequences to Mrs. Darling, we further opined that Mrs. Darling could not have been traveling very quickly in the eastbound direction prior to impact because her change-in-velocity would be too extreme. Therefore substantial braking must have taken place by her prior to impact and prior to her steering to avoid the collision. This led to our altered opinion that under the conditions of a much slower speed by Mrs. Darling it was possible for her to have been traveling within her lane and steer to the left causing the substantial change in direction and altered pointing angle. We therefore agreed that the information initially provided by Mrs. Darling could be reliable.
The jury found that Mr. Rennie likely did interfere with Mrs. Darling’s travel within her lane by cross the roadway center-line however they also found her at fault for taking the action of steering to the left when the opportunity of steering the right was made available to her.