Classic Errors in Accident Reconstruction: Real Experts vs. Fakes, Fools, and Frauds


  • John C. Glennon



As litigation has mushroomed in the 1970s and 807s, more and more varied types of people have proclaimed their expertise to practice motor-vehicle accident reconstruction. A vast number of those who have claimed to be experts have nothing more than a high-school education and a short course in accident reconstruction. Unfortunately, the courts, more often than not, have qualified these people as experts. Another large group of practitioners are college educated, but come to accident reconstruction by way of education and experience in non-related fields such as chemistry, nuclear physics, aeronautical engineering, air-conditioning design, plastics manufacture, and other distant disciplines. These people usually know the basic physics associated with accident reconstruction, but often do not appreciate or understand the idiosyncrasies of motor-vehicle collisions. But, they too are usually qualified as experts by the courts.



How to Cite

Glennon, John C. 1992. “Classic Errors in Accident Reconstruction: Real Experts Vs. Fakes, Fools, and Frauds”. Journal of the National Academy of Forensic Engineers 10 (1).




Similar Articles

1 2 3 4 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.