(PREPARATION OF OPENING PARAGRAPH MEMORANDM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF OR IN OPPOSITION TO A TRIAL MOTION)

On August 10, 2021, Ms. Polly Pedestrian, a 60 year old disabled individual who must use a cane in order to walk distances of more than one block, approached the intersection of Main and Hope Streets in the City of Hope. The intersection is a so-called "controlled" intersection where there are flashing "walk" or "stop" signs for pedestrians entering the intersection. When Ms. Pedestrian approached the intersection of Main and Hope Streets at approximately 3:00 p.m., the sun was shining into her eyes. Believing that the signal was indicating "Walk," Ms. Pedestrian started walking across the intersection. As a result of her disability, it took Ms. Pedestrian twice as long as the typical individual to cross the intersection.

Approximately half way into the intersection, a 16 wheel truck driven by Bill "Trucker" Jones struck Ms. Pedestrian while making a right hand turn into the intersection. Ms. Pedestrian is now suing "Trucker" Jones for personal injuries suffered in the accident.

"Trucker" Jones contends that the accident was the fault of Ms. Pedestrian. He contends that the light was in his favor at the time of his turn and that Ms. Pedestrian was crossing the intersection despite the presence of a red light and a flashing "DON'T WALK" sign. He also contends that he checked his mirrors before initiating the right hand turn but that Ms. Pedestrian "darted out" into the intersection.

On the other hand, Ms. Pedestrian contends that she had a green light and "Walk" signal in her favor. She blames the accident on "Trucker" Jones' inattentiveness and failure to detect her presence through the proper use of the mirrors on his truck.

Ms. Pedestrian retains an expert to reconstruct the circumstances leading up to the subject accident. The expert ("Mr. Reconstruction") is unable to use the truck driven by "Trucker" Jones in the reconstruction because it was being used at a trucker's exhibition in Albuquerque, New Mexico. In preparation for this testimony, Mr. Reconstruction travels to the scene of the accident. The purpose of his visit is to film a video which purportedly recreates the events leading up to the accident.

The truck used by Mr. Reconstruction in the accident reconstruction video is two feet longer than the truck being driven by "Trucker" Jones on the day of the accident. In addition, the reconstruction is conducted at 1:00 p.m. on April 5, 2022 where the sun is not shining directly into the face of a pedestrian crossing the intersection of Main and Hope Streets in the City of Hope. Mr. "Reconstruction" personally drives the truck in an attempt to recreate the circumstances leading up to the accident. Mr. "Reconstruction" is five inches shorter than "Trucker" Jones and, therefore, his ability to see ongoing pedestrians and/or vehicles at the intersection is more restricted than "Trucker" Jones.

After taking the deposition of Mr. "Reconstruction," the attorney for "Trucker" Jones concludes that he will move the trial court to exclude the video taken by Mr. Reconstruction at time of trial.

For the extra credit project, please select which party you would like to representeither Trucker Jones or Ms. Pedestrian. Depending on which party you represent, please write the opening paragraph of a Memorandum of Points and Authorities either opposing the motion on behalf of Ms. Pedestrian or requesting the granting of the motion for Trucker Jones. You are not obligated to do any independent research in support of this assignment.Nor are you required to prepare a caption (i.e., listing the parties in the hypothetical case) for this extra credit assignment.

The law provides that an accident reconstruction video is admissible in evidence if substantially similar to the actual accident. Accordingly, if you represent Ms. Pedestrian, then you are contending that the accident reconstruction video is substantially similar to the accident. Conversely, Trucker Jones argues that the accident reconstruction video is substantially dissimilar to the accident.