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This content has been archived.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.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]