It’s a defense lawyer’s dream evidence: a biomechanical engineer’s testimony — based on simulated accidents with human beings as test subjects — that a fender-bender could not have caused the injuries the plaintiff says it did.

The question is whether it’s science or pseudoscience. That’s what New Jersey’s Supreme Court is puzzling over in Hisenaj v. Kuehner A-86-06, argued on Tuesday.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]