Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
By By James O. Harris
Get notified
about new articles join the
ExpertPages
Mailing List now
Enter your email
mean a law violation must be construed as a causative factor in an accident. For example,
a vehicle's registration may have expired but this would not be relative to the vehicle
being involved in a collision although it is a violation. Many traffic laws exist solely to
govern the safe movement of traffic on the highways; stop signs, lane division, speed
limits, etc., and may concur with an accident factor that existed. For the police officer, it
is convenient to match a law violation with a "cause" but this practice often results in
errors as it tends to ignore other existing factors that may have been present and were
equally contributing to an accident.
A common law violation that is considered a modifier of the human factor is intoxication.
Assume a vehicle is stopped at a stop sign. The driver is legally intoxicated. His car is
struck in the rear end by another vehicle. The fact that the driver of the lead vehicle is
intoxicated is not a factor in this accident but the law violation is present. His
performance did not contribute to the event. When determining intoxication as a factor in
an accident, the effect of the level of intoxication in the human performance factor needs
to be quantified. For example, if a driver was not intoxicated, would the accident still
have occurred?
Outside the courtroom and in factual analysis, cause is whatever is required to produce a
result. A case normally consists of a combination of factors, circumstances or conditions
that must be present to produce the result. Consider a cigarette lighter. For a flame to be
produced, there must be fuel, a flint, a striking surface this is free of moisture and
someone to actuate the mechanism. Take out any of these circumstances and the lighter
will not produce a flame. Not only must these circumstances be present, they must be
present simultaneously. In this example, it is a simple matter to find one circumstance
that must be present to produce the result, such as the fuel, but in other situations the
factors may be difficult to identify.
When circumstances or conditions exist simultaneously, the degree of each condition may
be important. Consider two drivers, Smith and Jones. Smith, with better visual acuity, can
see better in dim light than Jones. Driving along a dark country road, without headlights,
neither driver can see a pedestrian walking along the side of the road. With high beam
headlights, both Smith and Jones can see the pedestrian. With low beam headlights,
Smith can see the pedestrian but not Jones. High beams allow Jones, even with his poorer
visual capacity, to see the pedestrian as can Smith. But Jones cannot see as well as Smith
under the same circumstances even though the environmental conditions were identical.
An analysis of an accident involving Jones and the pedestrian would include trying to
determine whether it was due to poor visual acuity or insufficient lighting conditions. If
three or more conditions interrelate, the evaluation of the circumstances becomes
considerably more complex.
Conditions and events are closely interrelated when considering accident factors. Some
may be obvious and others difficult to determine. If a large truck is involved in an
accident and the fuel tank is ruptured, the cause of the rupture and resulting fuel spill, is
readily determined. If the fuel was to ignite, the cause of the ignition may be
indeterminate but subject to speculation.
A "factor" is a circumstance contributing to a result. Without this factor, the result would
not exist but the factor alone is an element that, by itself, cannot produce the result. The
term "contributing factor" is meaningless if this definition is accepted. A factor must be
contributing if it is present otherwise it is not a factor. The term "primary factor" is
sometimes used by experts to indicate a factor that was strong in its contribution to the
accident. This is misleading as there can be no one factor more important than any other
if all factors must have been present to produce a result. No factor can be secondary, or
less important than another if all are required for the result. Like the links of a chain, all
must be present and none is more or less necessary than the other.
Consider a road with a sharp curve. One year, 10,000 cars safely negotiate the curve.
During the same year, 50 cars failed to negotiate the curve and crashed. What was the
cause of the accidents? If it is accepted that the sharp curve was the cause, then all the
cars traveling on this road would have had an accident. It may well be a factor, but
certainly not the sole circumstance in existence that precipitated the accidents. A
combination of factors, speed, driver capability, vehicle condition and environmental
conditions all come into play.
In a two car head-on collision, multiple factors again come into focus. Why was one
driver left of center? Was it a problem of perception? Or attitude? Why did the other
driver not take evasive action? Did a passenger not warn the driver of the impending
hazard? Is there road design defect? A failure to properly mark, sign or maintain the road?
Obviously, many questions are not addressed and will not be answered by a police officer
filling in blocks on a standard accident report form.
Actors fall into three primary areas: road, vehicle and human. Each area is subject to a
variety of modifiers. For instance, road factors include, but are not limited to lighting,
view obstructions, recognizability, signs, signals, surface character, dimensions and
protective devices. All factors are subject to modification by outside influences such as
the road surface that becomes slick from rainfall. Modifying each of the listed road
factors are weather, lighting, roadside devices, activities, surface deposits, damage,
deterioration and age.
For vehicles, factors include equipment condition, view obstructions, distractions,
instruments, signaling devices, control sensation, comfort, automatic controls and
devices, weight, performance, dimensions and stability. Vehicle speed, as a factor, must
exist. If neither vehicle had any speed, there could not have been a collision.
Human factors are without doubt the most complex and difficult to isolate as they are
almost all very temporary in nature. What existed at the time of the accident may not
exist moments later. Consider sensory capabilities, knowledge, judgment, attitude,
alertness, health, driving skill, age, customs, habits, weight, strength and freedom of
movement. Of these, the emotional factors are the greatest variable attributes and the
most difficult to identify. They are also subject to the most modification with the least
remaining evidence.
Remote condition factors may be considered when dealing with cause analysis although
they are seldom of significance to the investigator on a single accident case. Remote
condition factors may involve a changing cultural climate in which the factors and their
modifiers form. This includes moral influences, religion, beliefs, legal influence and
values on vehicle designers, highway engineers, drivers and pedestrians.
In most reconstructions preformed for civil litigation, collision avoidance is an issue.
Much of this analysis falls under a category of predisposing circumstances. Some of these
circumstances can be controlled by the individual. In small amounts, alcohol in the
bloodstream may have little effect on a driver's capabilities. In larger quantities, the effect
can be dramatic and greatly increase the chances of an accident. A driver may be exposed
to a predisposing circumstance, such as consuming moderate amounts of alcohol before
driving for many years and never have an accident. It is only when this circumstance is
combined with other circumstances that the full effect of the predisposing circumstance
becomes evident. Other predisposing circumstances, like driving in a rainstorm, can be
avoided by trip planning.
Determining all the factors that were present in any single accident would be a
monumental undertaking. With human foibles, none will ever be complete or accurate.
There are simply too many factors, modifiers and circumstances present that may have
disappeared long before the investigator becomes involved. Other circumstances may
simply never be revealed, or realized, by the parties involved. The examination of many
accidents at one location may reveal a single, unique circumstance common to all
accidents there. This is useful in isolating a factor not readily observable in a single case.
The essential test for proximate cause is the accident must be the natural and probable
result of a negligent act or omission and be of such a character as an ordinarily prudent
person ought to have foreseen it as likely to occur as a result of the action. It is not
essential that the person charged with the negligence should have foreseen the precise
injury from his action.
This definition makes the work of the accident analyst and advocate easier in that not all
the factors present in an accident may be sufficiently relevant to the cause for
consideration. Mere presence is insufficient, it must have in some significant way
contributed to the result. As such, there are several factors that are routinely identified as
being substantially contributing and others are accepted or implied as being present and
normally expected. In a case where a vehicle falls or flips, gravity is a factor and its
existence is accepted. This does not relieve the analyst of the responsibility of being
aware of the presence of additional factors because in any case any one of them may be
critical in determining proximate cause.
With a good understanding of the relationships of accident factors, circumstances and
modifiers, and sufficient data, an accident can be analyzed, causation determined and the
conclusions effectively presented.