A (Moving) Picture is Worth a Thousand Words: Using Animations to Bring Trucking Accident Cases to Life

(as published in the Maine Lawyers Review, 4/10/25; click here to download a PDF)

Introduction

Animations are a powerful tool to demonstrate the sequence of events in accidents involving commercial motor vehicles. Animations enhance juror comprehension, clarify complex expert testimony, and illustrate key factors such as the times, speeds, and distances involved in a crash in a way that makes it intuitive and easy for jurors to understand. However, the admissibility of such animations depends on their foundation in reliable witness testimony, expert accident reconstruction, and adherence to engineering principles.

Case Study: Alarcon v. W.B. Mason Co.

One of our recent cases, Alarcon v. W.B. Mason Co., demonstrates both the precision required in creating these animations, as well as the utility of these animations after they are created. In this case, we represented 21-year-old Xiomara Alarcon who, on September 8, 2022, was a junior at Bates College. Xiomara was walking across campus on Alumni Walk, a pedestrian walkway that runs from College Street on the eastern side of the campus to the dining hall on the west.  She was badly injured when she was struck by a WB Mason delivery truck that was backing up along Alumni Walk.

In our lawsuit against WB Mason and the truck driver, the defendants argued that Xiomara was inattentive and walked into the pathway of the moving truck. They claimed to have several eyewitnesses who supported that account of the events. By contrast, our client had consistently stated that she had never departed from her route of travel directly down Alumni Walk. We had a credible eyewitness who supported our client’s version of events.

We developed a trial animation that illustrated our client’s version of events, showed the point of view (POV) of the credible eyewitness and debunked the defense theory that our client left the pathway and then walked into the path of the truck.  We also used the animation to show the area where the crash occurred, emphasizing the fact that it was in the middle of a busy college campus where a driver should expect to find students walking.  We showed safer alternative approaches that WB Mason could have used to make the delivery, which would have avoided backing a large delivery truck onto the campus.  Finally, we used the animation to illustrate the gruesome nature of the impact and injuries to our client.

 You can view the animation and more info about the case here.

Establishing Dimensions, Time, Speed, and Distance Through Witness Testimony

Pursuant to M.R. Evid. 616, an illustrative aid such as a reconstruction animation is generally permitted when it will assist the trier of fact without misleading or prejudicing the jury.  Thus, when creating an accident reconstruction animation, it is essential that the animation accurately reflects the facts of the case. 

As relevant here, this involves: (1) taking accurate measurements of both the scene of the incident and the commercial motor vehicle involved; (2) locking down witness testimony early in the litigation process; and (3) making reliable calculations based on those measurements and testimony.

Measurements of the Scene and the Vehicle Involved

The vehicle involved in the incident was a W.B. Mason “supply truck,” measuring 34-feet-long by 7.8-feet-wide.  Although the truck had a backup camera equipped, that camera was mounted on the top of the rear face of the truck—10 feet off the ground—and angled downward.  As a result, the camera only showed an area up to 19 feet behind the bumper. Additionally, although the truck was equipped with sideview mirrors, the body of the truck prevented a driver from observing directly behind the truck with the mirrors.  

As a result, there was a “blind spot” behind the truck: at 19 feet behind the truck’s bumper, that blind spot was 7.2 feet wide. At 125 feet behind the truck’s bumper, the blind spot tapered to 4.75 feet wide, and at 200 feet behind the bumper, the blind spot was 1.67 feet wide.

Locking Down Witness Testimony

Based off first responder photographs and video, we were able to determine that the collision took place approximately 200 feet from the intersection of Alumni Walk and College Street. At his deposition, the driver of the W.B. Mason truck, Ryan Mellor, testified that he backed down Alumni Walk at 3-5 miles per hour.  He testified that he was alternately checking his sideview mirrors and backup camera as he backed.

Early in the case, there was conflicting testimony as to what Xiomara was doing in the moments before the collision – following the depositions of several students and faculty on the scene of the accident, there was speculation that Xiomara walked into the path of the backing truck from the side. None of those witnesses watched the incident unfold, however, and arrived at the scene only after the collision took place.

But there was another Bates student, Abby Waisler—who was an eyewitness—and watched the incident from her unobstructed view on a hammock strung between two trees adjacent to Alumni Walk.  Before her deposition, we met Ms. Waisler at the scene of the incident. We used orange parking cones to mark each location pertinent to Ms. Waisler’s observations: where she was at the time of the incident; where the W.B. Mason truck was when she first observed it; and where Xiomara was when Ms. Waisler first observed her.  

Calculations Based on These Measurements and Testimony

Based on this information, we were able to determine that when Ms. Waisler first observed them, the W.B. Mason truck was approximately 159 feet from the point of impact and Xiomara was farther down Alumni Walk, only 71 feet from the point of impact. 

This means that if Mr. Mellor was backing down Alumni Walk at 4 miles per hour—the average of the range the speed range Mr. Mellor offered at his deposition—then it would have taken 27.1 seconds to travel the 159 feet to the point of impact, and would have caught up to Xiomara at a rate of 3.2 feet per second.  Given the limitations of the truck’s mirrors and backup camera system, Xiomara would have been hidden in the “blind spot” for most of that time, and would have been visible in view of the backup camera for only 5.9 seconds before impact.

Illustrating Only What We Are Able to Establish

Importantly, despite Ms. Waisler’s eyewitness testimony and the thorough documentation of the incident by first responders, it was unclear exactly what happened to Xiomara while she was under the truck.  Specifically, it was not clear whether she remained behind the truck’s tires, such that it pushed her along while dragging her, or whether it ran over her and then pulled her along while also dragging her into the ground.  

Although we retained a biomechanical engineer to review the case, he was ultimately unable to determine—more likely than not, to a reasonable degree of engineering certainty—exactly what happened to Xiomara’s body while under the truck.  Thus, as you can see in the final animation, we did not endeavor to show that sequence of events, as it would have lacked an adequate foundation at trial.

Using the Animation to Discredit W.B. Mason’s Theory of the Case

As stated above, despite Xiomara’s clear testimony that she was walking straight down Alumni Walk before she was run over, there was conflicting testimony from several faculty and students as to whether she entered the path of the truck from the side.

Relying on the measurements of both the walkway and the areas viewable from the truck’s sideview mirrors and backup camera, we used the animation to discredit this theory. By overlaying the zones of sideview mirror and backup camera visibility onto Alumni Walk, we were able to show that if Xiomara had walked into the path from the truck from the side, she would have been visible in the truck’s sideview mirror and backup camera for a significant period of time before the collision. Thus, given Mr. Mellor’s testimony that he was consistently checking his sideview mirrors and backup camera as he backed, the recreation of this hypothetical scenario forced W.B. Mason to choose between blaming Xiomara and standing behind its driver’s testimony. As a result, once it came time to mediate the case, W.B. Mason had abandoned its “the plaintiff walked into the path of the moving truck” theory.

Conclusion

Animations in motor vehicle accident cases—and specifically, in trucking cases—serve as compelling visual tools when properly executed. As set forth above, the key to their admissibility and effectiveness lies in ensuring they are: 

• rooted in verified time, speed, and distance data;
• created with the input of qualified reconstruction and biomechanical experts; and
• limited to facts established by a reasonable degree of engineering probability.

In Alarcon v. W.B. Mason, the animation served not just as a compelling illustrative aid, but as a visual tool to: (1) discredit the defendant’s central theory of comparative fault; and (2) demonstrate how the truck’s blind spot directly contributed to the incident. By adhering to the requirements of M.R. Evid. 616, attorneys can maximize the impact of reconstruction animations while ensuring their admissibility in court.