See also: Phillip
Baskerville Criminal Trial
See also: Phillip Baskerville CFPD Report
See also: Phillip Baskerville Civil Trial
(Deposition taken on May 8, 1997, Black Hawk County Court House.)
1 Phillip Baskerville,
2 being produces, sworn as heinafter certified and
3 examined on behalf of the Defendant, testified as
5 Direct Examination
6 by Mr. Correll:
7 Q. Will you state your name.
8 A. Phillip Baskerville.
9 Q. And where are you employed?
10 A. Black Hawk County Sheriff's Office.
11 Q. And how long have you been with the
12 Sheriff's Department, Phil?
13 A. I started September 22, 1975,
14 Q. What is your rank with the Sheriff's
16 A. I'm a sergeant.
17 Q. And you have been involved in what other
18 jobs besides traffic investigation? What other
19 kinds of jobs have you had with the Sheriff's
21 A. As far as specialty or just in general?
22 Q. Just in general responsibilities.
23 A. I started with the Sheriff's Department
24 in 1975 and the first three years I worked in the
25 jail division. And in 1978 I went to the patrol
1 division for about 15 years, 14 years, something
2 like that. Somewhere in the middle of that I did
3 about a six-month commitment to the civil
4 division. In I believe 1990 I became a community
5 services officer doing public relations and
6 teaching DARE, and I did that though May or 1995
7 And in May of 1995 I went to the jail division
9 Q. Okay. And have you been doing what I
10 guess I would consider accident reconstruct ions for
11 any period of time?
12 A. Yes
13 Q. And when did that start?
14 A. I started specializing in accident
15 investigations through an educational pyramid back
16 in 1986.
17 Q. Okay. And when did you first testify in
18 district court, Black Hawk County District Court,
19 relative to giving expert opinion as to speed or
20 location of impact? What was the first year you
21 did that?
22 A. In the district court level, I believe
23 it would have been right around 1988, 1989.
24 Q. How many times have you given opinion
25 testimony in vehicular homicide cases?
1 A. I believe it's -- I have been involved
2 in six or seven vehicular homicide cases which
3 resulted in depositions and up to four or five
4 court appearances or courtroom testimony out of
6 Q. Are you involved in any way in doing
7 private work as an accident reconstruction person?
8 A. Yes, I do.
9 Q. And for how long have you been doing
11 A. About four years now.
12 Q. And do you work under your own name or
13 do you work with someone else?
14 A. Under my own name.
15 Q. And what is the name of the business?
16 A. Accident Reconstruction Services.
17 Q. Okay. and is that a corporation?
18 A. No, it is not.
19 Q. Are there any other employees beside
21 A. No.
22 Q. With regard to that business, is that a
23 business that you operate basically out of your
25 A. Yes, sir.
1 Q. In relationship to the Farrell case,
2 have you been contacted by any members of the
3 Farrell family?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And who is that?
6 A. I spoke with Mrs. Farrell three weeks
7 ago, four weeks ago.
8 Q. and where was that conversation?
9 A. Pardon me?
10 Q. Where?
11 A. She called me at work.
12 Q. And what was the purpose of that call?
13 A. She wanted to know about some property
14 inside of the car, if it was in fact there, and if
15 it was, if I could retrieve it for her.
16 Q. Did you have any other contact with any
17 other members of the Farrell family?
18 A. With the family, no.
19 Q. Have you had any contact with the
20 families of the girls of the other two passengers?
21 A. I believe one of the girls I spoke with
22 her mother, and it was a telephone call to the
23 house initiated by me to determine how much she
24 weighed. Which one of the girls it was I don't
1 Q. And when was that conversation?
2 A. That would have been in the fall or
3 winter, in the past six months.
4 Q. Any other communication with any of
5 those family members?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Have you had communication with their
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And is that Mr. Dunakey?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And on how many occasions have you had
13 communications with Mr. Dunakey?
14 A. Two or three times.
15 Q. Two or three times in person?
16 A. No.
17 Q. How many times in person?
18 A. None.
19 Q. Have you had communications with him by
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. When was the first time you had
23 communications with Mr. Dunakey by phone?
24 A. Sometime after the accident happened.
25 Within a month after the accident.
1 Q. Okay. And did he employ you to make
2 calculations for the civil aspect of this case?
3 A. He asked if I would.
4 Q. Okay. And what did you tell him?
5 A. I declined.
6 Q. Have you had additional contacts with
7 him on this issue?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And the first one was within a month
10 after the accident?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And did you give him any information
13 about that accident?
14 A. No.
15 Q. When was the next time you had
16 communication with him?
17 A. It was after I filed my report, and his
18 office had received a copy of the report.
19 Q. How did this office receive a copy of the
21 MR. CORRELL: Kasey, can I get a copy of
22 his report now?
23 MR. WADDING: I don't have one. Do you
24 know where it is? You're probably the last one
25 that looked at it. I can't find it -- it's not in
1 that folder. We can get a copy of it from Phil
2 cause he's got it here, but -- do you see it in
3 there? I though I had it right in this folder
4 right here.
5 MR. CORRELL: I mean --
6 MR. WADDING: Have you seen it?
7 MR. CORRELL: No, I haven't see it. I
8 saw right it in that file.
9 MR. WADDING: I know that it was in this
11 MR. CORRELL: I don't have it and I
12 assume you aren't implying I took it.
13 MR. WADDING: No, I'm not. Somewhere
14 along the lines it's been -- it's not in the same
15 file that I believe I had it in in the first place.
16 MR. CORRELL: Can we take a minute no
17 to have Phil give us each a copy then?
18 MR. WADDING: Sure.
20 MR. WADDING: Do you want this for
21 deposition purposes? You're not going to take it.
22 MR. CORRELL: It is my intent to take
23 this with me. I certainly have some problems with
24 the lawyer for the family has this and I don't have
25 a copy of it.
1 MR. WADDING: I don't know if that has
2 anything to do with this or not. I'm just
3 concerned about if from the standpoint of, you
4 know, if I am availed the same kind of
5 opportunities with any reports that are contained
6 in your file as regards to discovery matters.
7 MR. CORRELL: Well, why don't we -- I'm
8 going to -- at the end of this I'm going to ask for
9 this, and if you say no, I guess I'm going to go up
10 and -- I suggest we go up and have a judge tell
12 MR. WADDING: That would be fine.
13 MR. CORRELL: The other alternative, I
14 mean I -- it cost a lot of money, take a lot of
15 time. I can just have him read every word here,
16 which --
17 MR. WADDING: If that's what you want to
18 do, go ahead.
19 MR. CORRELL: That would be silly. I
20 mean I would think --
21 MR. WADDING: Alls I'm wondering is
22 where I stand with regard to this rules of discovery
23 on any reports that you now have. And obviously
24 you're not agreeing that I would have access to any
25 kind of reports that you have. So it's either have
1 him read it into the record or else we can go talk
2 to the judge.
3 MR. CORRELL: All right. Well, why
4 don't we go talk to the judge when I'm done?
5 MR. WADDING: Okay. That's fine.
6 MR. CORRELL: Mr. Baskerville, I've
7 been given a report that consists of two pages, it
8 has your signature, and it is dated February 9,
9 1997; is that correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Is that the only report that you have
12 prepared in this case?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Is this the report that you gave to
15 Mr. Dunakey?
16 A. My office gave it to Mr. Dunakey, yes.
17 Q. Did your office give to Mr. Dunakey
18 anything in addition to these two pages?
19 A. I believe so.
20 Q. And what else did they give him?
21 A. I don't know. My office case file is
22 different that what I have in front of me, and
23 whatever I put in the office files is what I', sure
24 our records clerk gave him on the subpoena.
25 Q. And what other material would that be?
1 A. Some computer printout calculations, I
2 believe my scene measurement; I believe some
3 vehicle information. What else is in there I just
4 can't be more specific right now.
5 Q. did you give him virtually everything
6 that was in your file?
7 A. I don't know.
8 Q. Do you have the subpoena there that he
9 gave you?
10 A. No, that would be in the office file.
11 Q. And what is on the other side of the
12 file you have there?
13 A. Over here?
14 Q. Yes.
15 A. Just my resume, scale diagram, sale
16 diagram, several scale diagrams, all of the same
17 things, photographs.
18 Q. Okay. May I see the photographs?
19 A. (Witness hands photographs).
20 Q. Did you solicit any legal opinion as to
21 whether that subpoena is a binding subpoena?
22 A. No.
23 Q. What is your practice as far as turning
24 over records when there is no case on file? There
25 is no civil case on file.
1 A. Our office will turn records over when a
2 subpoena is brought to the office.
3 Q. Would you have turned this record over
4 if I would have brought a subpoena to the office?
5 A. I believe they would have. I know they
6 would have.
7 Q. With regard to the next conversation you
8 had with Mr. Dunakey, the second conversation, that
9 was after he had these records; is that correct?
10 A. Yes, it would have been.
11 Q. And who initiated that conversation?
12 A. Mr. Dunakey.
13 Q. And where did he call you? At home or
14 at the office?
15 A. At the office.
16 Q. And what was the purpose of his call at
17 that time?
18 A. It had to do with a headlight and trying
19 to piece together a couple different things. As I
20 say this, I believe that Miss Farrell in a
21 statement had made reference to seeing one
22 headlight coming at her, and Mr. Dunakey was
23 questioning whether he headlights were on or not,
24 I believe, to Mr. Rokes's vehicle and why there was
25 no mention of that in my report when I believe it's
1 listed in Miss Farrell's statement, if I have what
2 I'm saying correctly. I haven't read the
3 statement for months. And that was what he was
4 talking about.
5 Q. Did you -- have you ever uncovered any
6 evidence yourself that would indicate that
7 Mr. Rokes's lights were not on?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Has in fact your investigation lead you
10 to the opposite conclusion, that his lights were in
11 fact on?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And what did you base that conclusion
15 A. The left front corner of Mr. Rokes's
16 vehicle, there was a corner light or a running
17 light filament that I examined that indicated that
18 that was on at the time of impact. And I didn't
19 take the analysis any further that that. And by
20 that I mean checking the headlights themselves. I
21 believe one headlight was destroyed and
22 unavailable, and the other light would require I
23 believe having to actually break the headlight
24 mount to do an examination of it, and I didn't not do
1 Q. Okay. Is there any doubt in your mind
2 that his headlights were on?
3 A. I see no reason to believe that they
4 were not on.
5 Q. And you haven't seen any reports that
6 would indicate anybody else reported that they were
7 no on; is that correct?
8 A. Exactly. Otherwise I would have carried
9 it a little bit further.
10 Q. What else did Mr. Dunakey ask you about?
11 A. There was a question whether I could
12 tell if the cruise control was on or set on a
13 vehicle at the time of impact?
14 Q. And which vehicle was he talking about?
15 A. I don't recall.
16 Q. And what did you tell him in that
18 A. No.
19 Q. With regard -- how long was this
20 conversation that you had with Mr. Dunakey at that
22 A. Both conversations were probably a
23 minute or two minutes. They weren't very long at
25 Q. Did he at that time indicate that when
1 the civil -- or when the criminal matter was over,
2 he would like to employ your services?
3 A. No, he did not.
4 Q. What else was discussed in addition to
5 those two items?
6 A. The issue of personal property of
7 Miss Farrell's in the car.
8 Q. did he discuss with you the speed that
9 you had attributed to the vehicles?
10 A. I know the speeds were brought up in the
11 conversations. I believe he may have asked me how
12 I made the determinations or, you know, where did
13 the speeds come from. But beyond that, nothing
15 Q. Okay. And would that have been a
16 conversation that was sometime in February?
17 A. It would have been after my report came
18 out, yes.
19 Q. February or March type of conversation?
20 A. Sometime after my report.
21 Q. Was it within the last week?
22 A. No.
23 Q. And I'm not trying to be specific, but
24 instead of going back week by week, what would be
25 the range of time that you would estimate that
1 call, recognizing your report was done February 6?
2 A. I can't help you. I don't know.
3 Q. And how was that conversation left at
4 the conclusion as far as him being back in contact
5 with you?
6 A. There wasn't anything to indicate that.
7 Q. Okay. Have you had any further
8 communication with him since that conversation?
9 A. The conversation involving the speed?
10 Q. This conversation that you just
12 A. The --
13 Q. The conversation -- second conversations
14 when we don't know the date of it or the month of
15 it. Has there been any conversation with
16 Mr. Dunakey since then?
17 A. Yes. I think we have lost our
18 chronological order here a little bit. It was
19 about a week ago that I spoke with him. He called
20 me about the cruise control issue. That was the
21 last conversation I had with Mr. Dunakey. And
22 again, that was I believe last week or perhaps the
23 latter part of the week prior. And the
24 conversation on the speeds, it was sometime before
25 that, sometime after my report came out.
1 Q. So you've had three phone conversations
2 with Mr. Dunakey?
3 A. Again I can't be specific how many calls
4 it was, two or three. You know, I remember talking
5 to him about everything that we've discussed, about
6 the cruise control, the property, the lights and
7 the speed, and perhaps those conversations were --
8 other than the one last week specifically on the
9 cruise control were conversations that were
10 multiple-topic conversations.
11 Q. Did you understand at that time that he
12 was going to be representing the family in making a
13 claim against Mr. Rokes?
14 A. Yes, I would have.
15 Q. And was it discussed with you that he
16 was desirous of having Mr. Rokes's vehicle
17 determined to be speeding?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Was it discussed by -- between the two
20 of you that he was desirous to not have or for you
21 not to make a finding that Miss Farrell's car was
23 A. I believe he really didn't --
24 Miss Farrell's mother doesn't understand or, you
25 know, her daughter wouldn't be driving that fast,
1 something like that. But as far as if he alluded
2 to pressuring me to questioning the speeds or
3 anything like that, no.
4 Q. Did you tell him that the speeds were as
5 you originally reported them on February 6 in you
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Have you in any way kept track of your
9 time that you devoted to this case?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Do you anticipate that you may be
12 employed as an expert in this case once the
13 criminal trial is completed?
14 A. No.
15 Q. Would you refuse such employment?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. With regard to whether it's two or three
18 conversations, those are the only conversations
19 that you've ever had with Mr. Dunakey?
20 A. Regarding this accident, yes.
21 Q. Did Mr. Dunakey ever ask you to come
22 over to his office?
23 A. No.
24 Q. And he never came to your office at the
25 Sheriff's Department.
1 A. No.
2 Q. Are you aware that here was an accident
3 there the previous day?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Ad tell me what you know abut that
6 accident, Phil.
7 A. Sergeant Wilson when I met with him at
8 the scene of this accident, the first thing that
9 stood out in my mind were some obvious skid marks,
10 they were from a dual axle or dual tire vehicle,
11 and Sergeant Wilson told me there was an accident
12 there the day before this accident and that those
13 marks came from one of the vehicles involved in
14 that accident.
15 Q. And do you understand that was a
16 personal injury accident?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Okay. From either what Mr. Wilson told
19 you or your examination of these skid marks, is it
20 your understanding that there was physical impact
21 between those two vehicles on the day previous?
22 A. I had presumed that because they were
23 involved in a collision.
24 Q. Okay. And -- so you're just saying you
25 don't know whether there was a personal injury.
1 You know there was at least property damage.
2 A. I know there was an accident there.
3 Q. And what is your understanding as to
4 which traffic light wasn't obeyed at the time of
5 that accident?
6 A. I don't know of that at all.
7 Q. Do you have any knowledge if any tickets
8 were issued regarding that?
9 A. No.
10 Q. Where was that point of impact in
11 relationship to the impact in the Rokes/Farrell
13 A. I don't know.
14 Q. Did you make a drawing of the point of
16 A. The impact area, yes.
17 Q. And can you -- did you also make any
18 measurements from various areas surrounding the
19 impact scene?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And would you indicate that other
22 measurements you've taken, from what other
24 A. The geographical design or layout of
25 that intersection I measured, and in--
1 Q. What can you tell me about that, by
2 making reference to your notes?
3 A. Could you be more specific what --
4 Q. Well, how wide is the highway, how wide
5 is the intersection?
6 A. Generally speaking, Highway 58 on the
7 north side of the intersection is about 92 feet
8 wide. On the south side of the intersection it's
9 about 80 foot wide.
10 Q. Okay. Can you tell me again on the
11 north side of the intersection?
12 A. The north side of the intersection it's
13 about 92-1/2 feet wide.
14 Q. Is that from inside curb to inside curb?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Okay. And what is it on the south side?
17 A. The south side it's about 80 --I'm
18 sorry 79-1/2 feet.
19 Q. I'm making this by hand. Am I doing --
20 I'm considering this the north side, down here the
21 south side.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Am I correct so far?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Okay. Go ahead.
1 A. The west side of the intersection is
2 about 80 feet wide, and the east side of the
3 intersection -- at this point I believe it's 102
4 feet wide.
5 Q. 102?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Have you made a big diagram of this
9 A. Yes, sir.
10 Q. And have you completed that?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. How big an area does it show?
13 A. Generally I believe it shows about 50
14 feet away from the apexes of each portion of the
15 roadway with the exception of the west -- I'm
16 sorry. The east side, which appears to be about a
17 hundred feet to the east.
18 Q. Okay. Do you have a smaller diagram
19 where you have the positions of the vehicles at
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And my I see that?
23 A. (Witness complies.)
24 Q. This drawing -- what is that caption? I
25 can't read that.
1 A. Conservation of momentum application.
2 Q. And is that a drawing that you prepared
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Ad which of those vehicle is the Rokes
7 A. As you are looking at it from the top
8 Mr. Rokes's vehicle would be the one to the right.
9 Q. This vehicle here?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. What -- can you read those comments that
12 are off to the side, please.
13 A. There's four lines. The first line,
14 what it says is zero-degree approach angle for W1
15 and V1, which would be Miss Farrell's vehicle. The
16 second line says 68-degree approach angle for
17 W2-V2, which would be the approach angle for
18 Mr. Rokes' vehicle.
19 Q. And what is the line of approach for the
20 Farrell vehicle?
21 A. Zero degrees.
22 Q. You mean it was going straight ahead?
23 A. Yes. The third line it says 15-degree
24 departure angle for W1-V3, which would be a
25 departure angle for Mr. Rokes's vehicle.
1 Q. And that's 15 degrees?
2 A. Yes, sir.
3 Q. Departure angle?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And what does that mean?
6 A. That would be the departure based upon
7 the collision forces, and if I can correct myself.
8 I believe I said Mr. Rokes's vehicle. It was
9 Miss Farrell's vehicle that departed at 15 degrees.
10 Q. This is post-impact.
11 A. That's correct.
12 Q. And does that mean that instead of going
13 straight, she is going off at an angle 15 degrees
14 after the impact?
15 A. At the onset of the collision and just
16 shortly after the collision, yes.
17 Q. And which way would be the 15 percent?
18 How would you measure that? Or which way?
19 A. The 15 degrees would be toward the
21 Q. Okay. And what is the Rokes vehicle?
22 A. The final line is line Number 4,
23 47-degrees departure angle for W2-V4, which would be
24 Mr. Rokes's vehicle.
25 Q. That's the post-impact departure.
1 A. Yes, sir.
2 Q. MR. WADDING: I have got to take a break
3 for a second.
5 Q. MR. CORRELL: Mr. Baskerville, where we
6 left off I think you were giving these angles, both
7 what I call the pre-impact angle and the
8 post-impact angle. I know those aren't the
9 technical words, but are those about words that I
10 that I understand what you are talking about?
11 A. I they they are very technical. I
12 agree with you.
13 Q. Okay. My understanding then is if a
14 person would have been going say -- in Mr. Rokes's
15 case, had he been going straight, would he have
16 been going at zero or would he have been going at
17 90 degrees?
18 A. By the design of the road?
19 Q. Yes.
20 A. The design of the road would cause for
21 his approach angle to be -- I believe the design of
22 the road would cause for the approach angle to be
23 about 77 degrees into the intersection if a vehicle
24 would be traveling the normal course of the road.
25 Again I want to qualify myself, I believe it was 77
2 Q. So is his impact angle then on your
3 drawing. If we would get -- is it a protractor that
4 measures degrees?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. If we would put a protractor to this and
7 we have a line where what would have happen had
8 he continued to go straight as opposed to what he
9 actually did, would we have that he turned his car
10 how many degrees?
11 A. If the approach is 77 degrees, he would
12 have turned his car 9 degrees.
13 Q. The other car, given the road approach,
14 am I correct in my understanding that car was going
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And does that -- is my understanding
18 further correct that that would indicate that that
19 car had taken no what I would call evasive action,
20 the Farrell vehicle?
21 A. It doesn't appear as if there was any
22 evasive action on her part.
23 Q. And is that your opinion?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Is it your opinion that the Rokes
1 vehicle would have taken evasive action?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And that is demonstrated by the degree
4 of the turn.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Did you back up and make any
7 determination as to how many feet prior to impact
8 Mr. Rokes would have initiated that action?
9 A. No, I did not.
10 Q. Do you have an opinion as to how many
11 feet prior to that he would have initiated that
13 A. No.
14 Q. Is there a general range of acceptable
15 standard to reaction time in auto accident
16 reconstruction analysis?
17 A. Yes, there is.
18 Q. And is that .75 seconds?
19 A. That's one of the acceptable ranges,
20 yes. The lower end of it.
21 Q. And what is -- in the literature, not by
22 advocates, but the literature of well established
23 academics, scientists in this area, what is the
24 accepted range of time?
25 A. The range is three-quarters of a second
1 on the minimal end to one and a half seconds on the
2 maximum end for a normal, typical driver.
3 Q. Is there evidence that indicates that
4 reaction time is slowed at night?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Is there evidence that reaction time is
7 slowed by age?
8 A. yes.
9 Q. And what is the evidence that the
10 fastest, quickest reaction time, what do the
11 studies indicate that the quickest reaction times
12 are achieve by: What age of people?
13 A. The quickest reaction is by younger
14 people, 16-,18-, 20-year-old people.
15 Q. And is it correct that that reaction
16 time as we all age after that in varying degrees
17 diminishes? And never gets better?
18 A. The reaction time, correct.
19 Q. Okay. By making utilization of your
20 drawing and this document, which I'm going to call
21 the conservation document, can you then show me
22 where in your opinion that the accident took place,
23 the point of impact.
24 A. I would use this diagram that I'll just
25 call the post-collision situation diagram, and the
1 impact forces caused some tire marks and gouge
2 marks in the surface of the road in here, in this
3 area, so this would be the area of impact.
4 Q. And in feet, what is the measured
5 landmark, whether it's a curb or what -- what is
6 the measured feet landmark where you observed those
7 gouge marks?
8 A. All the measurements that I took began
9 from the southeast apex of the intersection where
10 the linear curb lines of west Greenhill Road would
11 have met the curb lines of the southern part of
12 Highway 58.
13 Q. So basically if we would just extend
14 with a ruler or another straight-lined instrument,
15 we would come to -- instead of a curve point, we
16 would come to a 90-degree angle. Is that what
17 you're referring to as the apex?
18 A. If this was a true right angle, it would
19 be a 90-degree angle. But again, the design of
20 this intersection isn't a true right angle. but in
21 the theory you just described, that's correct.
22 Q. Okay. And how many feet from that apex
23 to the north did the point of impact take place?
24 A. The northernmost point is 70 feet north
25 of there -- 70 and four-tenths feet north and about
1 4 feet 8 inches east.
2 Q. 70 feet north and how many feet east?
3 A. 4 feet 10.
4 Q. Do you have your calculations either
5 available to you or so you can calculate how many
6 feet per second a person is traveling at various
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Based upon your examination of the
10 evidence, is it my understanding if Mr. Rokes was
11 traveling at 45 miles per hour, you would
12 anticipate or it is your opinion that the Farrell
13 vehicle was traveling 63 miles an hour?
14 A. Would you say that again, please?
15 Q. Is it you opinion that if the Rokes
16 vehicle was traveling 45 miles per hour at impact,
17 that the Farrell vehicle would have been traveling
18 63 miles per hour at impact?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Do you have any reason to doubt that the
21 Rokes vehicle was traveling 45 miles per hour?
22 A. I have a speed range for Mr. Rokes's
23 vehicle being between 36 and 45 miles an hour.
24 Q. And do you know what the speed limit is
25 on the road Mr. Rokes was driving?
1 A. Yes, I do.
2 Q. And what do you know that to be?
3 A. 45 miles per hour.
4 Q. And do you know the speed that he told
5 investigators that he was driving?
6 A. I don't recall.
7 Q. Do you ever recall hearing a number in
8 the regard?
9 A. I believe I had a copy of his statement
10 that I reviewed on the onset of my investigation of
11 this accident. I remember reading it, but to tell
12 you what it specifically said, I can't right now.
13 Q. Is your sense of the physical evidence
14 more consistent with Mr. Rokes going 45 than 36
15 miles per hour?
16 A. Could you repeat the question? Perhaps
17 reword it.
18 Q. Isn't the physical evidence that you
19 observed more consistent with Mr. Rokes going at 45
20 or near 45 miles an hour as opposed to 36 miles per
22 A. Not necessarily.
23 Q. If Mr. Rokes indicated he was going
24 approximately 45 miles per hour, would there be
25 anything in your findings that would be
1 inconsistent with that?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And what is that?
4 A. Through the principle of conservation of
5 linear momentum. The physics involved in this
6 collision, that's where -- based upon the physical
7 evidence that was available is where I made the
8 determination that he could have been going as slow
9 as 36 miles per hour.
10 Q. Did you not, through, make the
11 determination that the more likely scenario, based
12 on that same calculation, is that he was going
13 close to, if not, 45 miles an hour?
14 A. Repeat the question again, please.
15 Q. Did you not reach the conclusion that by
16 the formula -- by the formula and your
17 observations, that the evidence supported him going
18 towards the higher range of the peed than the
19 lower range of the speed?
20 A. No, sir.
21 Q. Did the evidence lead you one way or the
23 A. No.
24 Q. With regard to the factors that you take
25 into making speed calculations, one is the road
1 surface; is that correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And you did the drag, tire drag test to
4 determine that?
5 A. Yes, sir.
6 Q. And did you do that for approaches both
8 A. No.
9 Q. Only from the way Mr. Rokes was going
10 or --
11 A. The only area that I did it was the
12 departure paths of both vehicles were pretty
13 consistent and that's the only area I've been
14 concerned with the slipperiness value of the road.
15 Q. Okay. And another area is the amount of
16 impact damage to the vehicles; is that right?
17 A. Not in this formula that I've used, no.
18 Q. Why don't you tell me what other factors
19 in addition to the coefficient of fraction of the
20 road that you used.
21 A. The approaching angles of both vehicles,
22 we have discussed that. The departure angles of
23 both vehicles. And the post-impact of departure
24 speeds of both vehicles as well as the weights of
25 both vehicles involved. A combination of all those
1 things are used in conservation of linear momentum.
2 Q. Ad what information or how did you gain
3 your information as to the vehicle or the Farrell
4 car? What was your source of information to
5 determine the weight of the Farrell vehicle?
6 A. I have a computer program that lists
7 virtually all the vehicles manufactured and
8 available for us to drive, and that program
9 supplies me with the data that I need.
10 Q. And by making reference to your notes,
11 what weight did you attribute to the vehicle, the
12 Farrell vehicle? First the vehicle itself.
13 A. The Farrell vehicle? 2,748 pounds.
14 Q. And is that the weight given by the
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And for the purpose of your formula,
18 what weight did you use?
19 A. I used 3,094 pounds.
20 Q. So you use about 350 pounds of weight
21 additional weight?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And how did you arrive at that?
24 A. The three occupants of Miss Farrell's
25 vehicle, I used their weights.
1 Q. Where did you get their weights?
2 A. Pardon me?
3 Q. How much did you attribute to each of
4 those three people?
5 A. Julie Farrell, 120 pounds. My notes
6 reflect Tamara, 126 pounds, and Hill, 100 pounds.
7 Q. Okay. And what was your source of that
9 A. Two out of the three I got off their
10 driver's licenses. And I believe at the time that
11 I was attempting to do that I could not find a
12 driver's license for Hill, and I contacted Sergeant
13 Wilson, who said that he got it off of her driver's
14 license that she weighed a hundred pounds.
15 Q. Okay. Anything else that you attributed
16 to contents of the vehicle?
17 A. No, sir.
18 Q. Were there items in the trunk of the
20 A. I don't believe there was.
21 Q. Is there a photograph of the inventory
22 of the trunk?
23 A. No, there's not, but when I examined the
24 vehicles, I was in the trunk, I remember there
25 might have been some -- perhaps a few school books,
1 a set of jumper cables, there wasn't anything of
2 any significance or anything that would have an
3 aggregate of anything significant in the trunk or
4 anywhere else in the car.
5 Q. What about the Rokes vehicle? How much
6 does your book tell you that weighs?
7 A. The same source, the book -- the vehicle
8 weighed 3,880.
9 Q. And how much did you attribute to the
11 A. 365 pounds.
12 Q. And how was that divided?
13 A. Mr. Rokes, 230, and Mrs. Rokes 135
15 Q. And was that off a driver's license?
16 A. Yes, sir.
17 Q. Did you attribute any weight to other
18 contents in the vehicle?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Were there other items in the vehicle?
21 A. I don't believe there was anything in
22 the car.
23 Q. What would it do to your calculations
24 speedwise if there was another hundred pounds of
25 weight in the Farrell vehicle?
1 A. I don't think it would change them to
2 any significant level at all.
3 Q. Would it change the speed up or down?
4 A. It would increase the speed.
5 Q. At the time of impact.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. For the Farrell vehicle.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Does the book that you have, does that
10 take into account gas in the vehicle?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And does that have it at what kind of
13 gas? Tank full? I mean does it have the gas tank
14 full or not?
15 A. Yes, it does.
16 Q. Do you know what the gas tanks were on
17 these two vehicles?
18 A. No, sir.
19 Q. If the Farrell vehicle weighed less than
20 this 3,094 plus 350, it would have slowed -- it
21 would have resulted in a somewhat slower speed? Am
22 I correct in that?
23 A. I guess I don't know right not. I'd
24 have to calculate the difference out. From other
25 ones that I've done, I'm drawing a blank and can't
2 Q. With regard to the Rokes vehicle, if his
3 vehicle weighed more, what would that do to his
4 speed and the Farrell vehicle's speed?
5 A. Again I guess I'm going to have to
6 answer I don't know right now.
7 Q. Do I understand your drawing to indicate
8 that the -- at the point of impact, the Rokes
9 vehicle would have been closer to being through the
10 intersection that the Farrell vehicle?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And if the Farrell vehicle -- let me
13 strike that.
14 Is it true, Mr. Baskerville, that you
15 simply don't have any opinion as to whether he was
16 going 36 or 45? Excuse me. Opinion to a
17 reconstructive accident certainty.
18 A. My opinion is that he was going between
19 36 and 45 miles an hour.
20 Q. And you don't -- you are unable to be
21 any more specific than that.
22 A. No.
23 Q. I'm correct. You can't be more
24 specific -- you aren't saying well -- at trial you
25 aren't going to say, "I really think he was going
1 38 miles an hour," or, " I really think he was going
3 A. No. 36 to 45 miles per hour.
4 Q. Okay. And with regard to the Farrell
5 vehicle, I think you said that it was what 63 to 51 or
7 A. 49 to 63 miles per hour.
8 Q. If -- do you have the calculation --say
9 if Mr. Rokes is not going 45 but he's going 44--
10 let me say 43, did you make calculations, running
11 calculations, as to how fast the Farrell vehicle
12 would be going on each of those scenarios?
13 A. The question was if Mr. Rokes was at 43
14 miles per hour?
15 Q. Yes.
16 A. Miss Farrell would have been at 54 miles
17 per hour.
18 Q. Can you go through and run through all
19 the calculations how fast the Farrell vehicle would
20 have been at different calculations for the Rokes
22 A. If Miss Farrell at 49 miles an hour,
23 Mr. Rokes at 36. Miss Farrell at 63 miles an hour,
24 Mr. Rokes at 45. Miss Farrell at 54 miles an hour,
25 Mr. Rokes at 43 miles per hour. Miss Farrell at 58
1 miles per hour. Mr. Rokes at 38 miles per hour.
2 Q. So you made about three or four
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. What was that last one?
6 A. Miss Farrell at 58 miles per hour,
7 Mr. Rokes 38 miles per hour.
8 Q. Let me copy those. Can you start at the
9 beginning again with Rokes.
10 A. Mr. Rokes 36, Miss Farrell 49.
11 Mr. Rokes at 45, Miss Farrell 63. Mr. Rokes 43,
12 Miss Farrell 54. Mr. Rokes 38, Ms. Farrell 58.
13 Q. What it appears, that she is going
14 slower when he is going 43 than when he's going
15 38? That can't be right, can it?
16 A. The range of speeds is all dependent
17 upon the after-impact speed of both vehicles. And
18 in this particular accident there was very little
19 evidence of the after-impact -- physical evidence
20 associated with their after-impact speed. So what
21 I did was based upon their distance of travel after
22 they collided, used an 80 percent deceleration rate
23 of a full braking vehicle for each vehicle, because
24 they rotated about 180 degrees, as well as used a
25 50 percent deceleration rate of what would normally
1 be accomplished by a full skidding vehicle on this
2 particular surface of the road. And that's where
3 these ranges are coming from. The speed of
4 Mr. Farrell going -- I'm sorry. Miss Farrell going
5 58 miles per hour and Mr. Rokes going 38 miles per
6 hour -- I'll have to say it one more time to make
7 sure I said it right. Miss Farrell going 58 miles
8 per hour, Mr. Rokes going 38 miles per hour, it
9 based upon Mr. Rokes's vehicle decelerating at a
10 rate of 50 percent and her vehicle decelerating at
11 a rate of 80- percent of the available coefficient
12 of friction on the road.
13 Q. But if you use that same allocation,
14 tat same formula, wouldn't all of these go up or
15 down together? I mean the way we have it, we have
16 one that is our of sync her, the 38 to 58.
17 A. Well, we're -- in the order of speeds,
18 36 as opposed to 49, 36 miles per hour for
19 Mr. Rokes, 49 for Miss Farrell, that's
20 representative of a 50 percent deceleration with
21 both vehicles after impact. The speed range of
22 Mr. Rokes' 45 to Miss Farrell's 63 is representing
23 an 80 percent deceleration rate for both vehicles.
24 Mr. Rokes at 43, Miss Farrell at 54, represents
25 80 percent stopping ability on the part of
1 Mr. Rokes and 50 percent stopping ability on the
2 part of Miss Farrell. And 38 miles an hour for
3 Mr. Rokes as opposed to 58 for Miss Farrell
5 and 80 percent of the stopping ability on
6 Miss Farrell. So it's flip-flopping their
7 deceleration the last two. One is slowing down at
8 a faster rate then the other one. Which increases
9 their after-impact speed.
10 Q. But as far as an acceptable standard,
11 isn't the more acceptable standard to have them
12 both being treated at the same deceleration rate?
13 A. Both vehicles should have similar speeds
14 after impact. The rate of deceleration is going to
15 be different for each vehicle. There are different
16 factors that have to be considered.
17 Q. but if you used the deceleration --
18 equal deceleration rates -- which would be
19 appropriate in this case, would it not?
20 A. Not necessarily.
21 Q. Would it be inappropriate?
22 A. Not necessarily.
23 Q. If you use equal deceleration rates for
24 both vehicles, you have the Farrell vehicle going
25 12 to 14 miles per hour faster than the Rokes
1 vehicle at the point of impact; is that correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And if you have the Farrell -- excuse
4 me. If you have the Rokes vehicle going the speed
5 limit, the Farrell vehicle is going 8 miles an hour
6 over the speed limit; isn't that a fair statement?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. How many feet per second is the Farrell
9 vehicle going at 63 miles per hour?
10 A. 92 feet per second.
11 Q. Would that really be 92.4 feet?
12 A. Yes, it would be.
13 Q. And is the Farrell -- is the Rokes
14 vehicle traveling at 45 miles an hour 66 feet per
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And if the Farrell vehicle is going 55
18 miles per hour, would that calculate to 80.6 feet
19 per second?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Have you reached any conclusion as to
22 what would be the appropriate reaction time for
23 Mr. Rokes?
24 A. No, sir.
25 Q. When you typically do reaction or speed
1 calculations, do you have to as part of that
2 formula attribute some time for reaction time? As
3 you back up down the roadway?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And what is the time that you typically
7 A. For a typical person, I''ll use about one
9 Q. Okay. Is there any reason why you
10 wouldn't use from what you know one second for
11 Mr. Rokes?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And what is that?
14 A. Because of his alcohol content.
15 Q. And what do you understand the alcohol
16 content to be?
17 A. I believe I could scan these reports
18 forever and maybe not find it right now. I believe
19 there was two tests. On indicated I believe it
20 was .086 and the other one I believe was .126. And
21 again I'm just going off my memory.
22 Q. Let me say, I think you're right that
23 there were two tests that were reported. Do you
24 have any information as to which of the two tests
25 is correct?
1 A. No, I don't.
2 Q. Would you agree that under .10, reaction
3 time is not influenced or reduced?
4 A. No, I would not agree with that.
5 Q. Would you make some reduction in
6 reaction time in all cases where there was any
8 A. If I understood what you're asking me, I
9 would usually use a typical one-second reaction
10 time. If a person is impaired, would I increase
11 the reaction time? Yes, I would. The higher level
12 of their impairment, the longer the reaction time
13 would be up to a maximum of about two and a half to
14 perhaps even three seconds.
15 Q. But my question is; under a hundred,
16 isn't it a fact that you typically use the
17 one-second reaction time?
18 A. No, I wouldn't.
19 Q. At under a hundred what reaction time
20 would you use?
21 A. Without researching it, I would
22 anticipate using one of one and three-quarters to
23 perhaps two and two-quarters second.
24 Q. Depending on what?
25 A. Just available research information to
2 Q. Can you cite me any of that research
3 information studies or authors that you have read
4 that addresses that specific issue?
5 A. One would be the Northwestern University
6 Traffic Institute Reconstruction Manual, and
7 another one would be a book authored by I believe
8 his name is Rudy Limpert. I believe those two
9 sources would --
10 Q. And tell me, if you can -- or if you
11 can't, tell me as well. Can you tell me at what
12 point, what minimal level, they say reaction time
13 on the average is reduced?
14 A. No, I cant.
15 Q. What are the dimensions of the Farrell
16 vehicle in length?
17 A. The total length of her vehicle would be
18 190 inches.
19 Q. If we assume that the Farrell vehicle
20 was going 63, and if we assume that the Rokes
21 vehicle was going 45 at the time of the impact, if you
22 keep the Rokes vehicle going at 45 and would reduce
23 the Farrell vehicle to the speed limit of 55, isn't
24 it a fact that the Rokes vehicle would have cleared
25 the intersection?
1 A. I roughly calculated that out, and it
2 seemed to me it would have made about an 11-foot
3 difference in the impact, which would have either
4 caused Miss Rokes to strike -- I'm sorry,
5 Miss Farrell to strike Mr. Rokes' vehicle or a
6 corner-to-corner type type of impact. Again I'm talking
7 from memory. And it was a real rough calculation.
8 Q. Well, let me go back, cause I'd like to
9 run through that.
10 If the Farrell vehicle is 190 inches
11 long, it is approximately 15.5 feet? Could you
12 make that calculation so we have that right?
13 A. My graph show 15.8 feet.
14 Q. And if she would have been going 55 as
15 opposed to 63, she would have been going 11.8 feet
16 per second slower; isn't that correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. When you look at these pictures, and
19 looking at the the point of impact, knowing that the
20 whole car is only 12.8 inches -- or 12.8 feet, and
21 she would have been going 11.6 -- or 11.8 feet per
22 second slower, isn't the fact of the matter, sir,
23 that this would have been a near miss? Making
24 those assumptions?
25 A. Again just going back from when I tried
1 to calculate this out, be it ever so quickly, that
2 it would -- she would have struck him or it would
3 have been a corner-to-corner impact.
4 Q. But that -- I mean applying this
5 formula, that can't be, if we know by science that
6 she is going 11.8 feet per second slower; correct?
7 At 55 miles an hour. She would be 11.8 feet back
8 from where she was.
9 A. That's correct.
10 Q. And if she was back 11.8 feet, and we
11 know the whole car is what, 12 point how many feet?
12 A. 15.8 feet.
13 Q. 15.8 feet, and we look at the photograph
14 of her vehicle as where that impact was --which
15 I'd ask you to do. I'd like to hand you that
16 photograph which you took. Looking at how much of
17 that car was not touched, isn't it a fact that
18 although it would have been close, there would not
19 have been contact?
20 A. First of all, in response to your
21 question, I didn't take the pictures. These were
22 supplied tome by Sergeant Wilson.
23 Q. Is the picture I showed you which
24 purports to be -- does that -- is that consistent
25 with your recollection of you view of the vehicle?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Did you take the measurements as to
3 where the first point of impact on that vehicle
5 A. Generally, yes.
6 Q. Okay. And when you say generally, what
7 do you mean?
8 A. The first contact with this vehicle was
9 about 4 and three-quarter feet from the rear of
10 the car. And generally. I'm not going to be
11 specific and say it was r and three-quarters feet.
12 It was in that area.
13 Q. And the whole car was 15.8 feet?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. 15.8 inches?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And if we take 4 feet 3 inches off of
18 that, we have what, 11.5 feet?
19 A. 4 feet three-quarters.
20 Q. Pardon me?
21 A. 4.85 feet.
22 Q. Okay. 4.75 feet. And if we take 15
23 feet 8 inches minus 4 feet what, 8 inches? Is that
24 what we take off? I'm looking at the whole care is
25 15 feet 8 inches?
1 A. 15 feet eight-tenths. 15 and
2 eight-tenths foot. 15.8.
3 Q. So how many inches is that additional to
4 15 foot?
5 A. I believe eight-tenths of a foot is
6 about 7 inches, I believe.
7 Q. So we would have 15 foot 7 inches is the
8 total length of this car?
9 A. I don't know. I would mathematically do
10 it in tenths as opposed to inches.
11 Q. Okay. And if there are 4.8 inches --
12 excuse me. 4 feet 8 inches behind the car that was
13 struck at all; correct?
14 A. Four -- would be 4 foot 9 inches, 4 and
16 Q. Okay. If you take 15 -- and use your
17 calculator, please. 15 feet 7 inches and take away
18 4 feet 9 inches, what does that leave?
19 A. If I take 15 and eight-tenths feet and
20 take away 4 and three-quarters foot, it would leave
21 11 feet -- a little bit more than 11 feet.
22 Q. How much more?
23 A. Five one-hundredths of an inch.
24 Q. So basically 11 feet; correct?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And if she were going the speed limit of
2 55, you would take 92.4 feet from 80.6 feet; is
3 that correct? Am I correct in that? Is how many
4 feet she is traveling per second slower?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Because at 63 she's traveling 92.4 feet
7 and at 55 she's traveling 80.6 feet; correct?
8 A. Correct?
9 Q. Would you do that on your calculator,
10 too. And what do you come to?
11 A. 11 and eight-tenths feet.
12 Q. And that would be 11 feet 9 inches
14 A. 7 inches.
15 Q. Not to repeat myself, but under that
16 calculation, they would have missed, would they
18 A. She would have hit him, though.
19 Q. He would not have hit her.
20 A. Correct. Or it would have been -- I go
21 back to what I stated right from the beginning.
22 that could have been a corner to corner or she
23 would have struck him impact.
24 Q. We have to know then how big his vehicle
25 is, don't you? I mean how long his vehicle is.
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Would you concede that it is certainly
3 possible that under a scenario where they are both
4 going the same speed limit -- excuse me. If they
5 are both going the speed limit, him at 45 and she
6 at 55, neither one of them see other, there
7 would have either been her catching him at the end
8 of his car or him actually clearing the
10 A. I believe at this point I would agree
11 with that, although I don't have the luxury of
12 sitting down at my desk to calculate this all out.
13 Q. Did you ever attempt to calculate how
14 far from the point of impact Mr. Rokes was when he
15 first saw her?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Do you feel you can do that?
18 A. I'd be somewhat uncomfortable doing it.
19 I would probably approach it from a common sense
20 kind of approach where at the last moment he
21 perceived some sort of danger and had just enough
22 time to change the angle of his car by steering
23 that would allow him to change his direction of
24 travel by I believe 9 degrees. It would be very
25 extremely quick reflex.
1 Q. What is the maximum a car -- a car can't
2 turn at 45 degrees, can it?
3 A. Its direction of travel can't abruptly
4 be going in one direction and now go 45 degrees.
5 No, it can't do that without an outside force
6 acting upon it.
7 Q. Okay. Would you agree from your
8 observation of the scene, your measurements and the
9 photographs, that this is a vehicular accident
10 where it appeared that both drivers were
11 distracted, at least in Mr. Rokes's case; shortly
12 prior to the accident?
13 A. If I could repeat your question to
14 should there have been some sort of reaction from
15 the impending collision, I would say yes. Why that
16 reaction did not occur, I don't know. Does that
17 answer your question?
18 Q. Well, not -- I guess not exactly.
19 A. Okay.
20 Q. It's clear that Miss Farrell really
21 never saw Mr. Rokes, isn't it?
22 A. I have no reason to believe that she
24 Q. Are you familiar with she having told
25 Mr. Wilson that she didn't see Mr. Rokes because
1 she was talking to one of her friends in the
2 passenger's seat or the back seat?
3 A. I don't recall that, no.
4 Q. Have you heard that prior to me just
5 saying that?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Are you familiar that Mr. Rokes told
8 A. investigators immediately after the accident that
9 he was trying to console his wife who was crying
10 about the health of her mother?
11 Q. Yes, I recall that.
12 A. Would what you saw in your accident
13 investigation be consistent with someone in
14 Mr. Rokes's position who was distracted prior to,
15 in the seconds -- seconds prior to this accident?
16 A. I'd agree with that.
17 Q. And would be it fair to say you cannot
18 say with any degree of certainty what was the
19 reason for that distraction on the part of
20 Mr. Rokes?
21 A. I believe you got me with the double
22 words again.
23 Q. Okay. Well, I'm not trying to be
25 A. Right.
1 Q. Let me rephrase it them. Isn't it fair
2 to say that if you assume Mr. Rokes was distracted
3 by trying to comfort his wife, that you don't have
4 any reason to believe that there was any other
5 source of distraction for him?
6 A. That would be a distraction.
7 Q. And isn't it a fact that in your
8 accident reconstruction cases, that the cause of
9 most accidents are because of the distraction of
10 the diver? Or inattentiveness of the driver?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. The driver is focusing their attention
13 on something other than the roadway immediately
14 ahead of them.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And that can be equally true for someone
17 who has had no drink as well as somebody who had a
18 drink; would you agree with that?
19 A. The drink or the alcohol will induce
20 what you described, but that is an equal
21 opportunity to be distracted, whether there's
22 alcohol present or not?
23 Q. But there's a lot of people who are
24 distracted totally without any alcohol being
25 involved. Have you found that in your
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Would you agree you cannot simply -- it
4 would be inaccurate to conclude that the
5 distraction is attributable to the alcohol? You
6 don't know that; isn't that a fact?
7 A. No, any time alcohol to the higher
8 degrees is in the system of the driver, that's an
9 inherent distraction right there. The alcohol is
10 induced to prevent proper perception. That's just
11 one of the many problems.
12 Q. Well, but in this case we have one
13 person who didn't ever see, and there's no
14 indication she was drinking at all, was there?
15 A. That's correct.
16 Q. And so she was distracted because she
17 was attentive to the other people in her car; would
18 that be a fair statement?
19 A. It could be.
20 Q. And couldn't it equally be fair to say
21 that Mr. Rokes was distracted just as he described,
22 and even though he did see, it was late? It was
23 too late?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And it could very well be -- you don't
1 know one way or the other, but it could very well
2 be that the consumption of alcohol played no role
3 in this accident; isn't that a fact?
4 A. No, I would disagree with that.
5 Q. you don't know that alcohol played any
6 role in him not looking ahead down the road, do
8 A. I would disagree with that.
9 Q. you think that he was not looking down
10 the road because of the alcohol?
11 A. Again I think any time that somebody has
12 a higher alcohol content, that they become -- or
13 develop the inability to properly look out and
15 Q. But at the same time how do you explain
16 the the Farrell girl?
17 A. I believe you explained it that it can
18 happen to anybody.
19 Q. And there is not a direct -- I guess
20 what my point is, to me it's obvious, because
21 somebody has alcohol in their blood does not mean
22 that that has caused the accident. Would you agree
23 with that?
24 A. I would agree that if a person that had
25 a blood alcohol content this high was stopped at a
1 stop sign, they were rear-ended, no, they didn't
2 have any part of the accident. But to say that a
3 person driving down the road that has a high blood
4 alcohol content that is in the process of consoling
5 his wife, I think there are two reasons that are
6 paramount in creating the distraction. One, the
7 alcohol, as well as the personal problem.
8 Q. How do you know that -- you personally
9 don't know that he alcohol played any role in
10 being attentive to consoling his wife, do you?
11 A. No, I don't.
12 Q. Did you make any calculations going back
13 from the point of impact to any other intersections
14 to the east?
15 A. No, I don't.
16 Q. To any other intersections to the west?
17 A. No.
18 Q Are there any what I would call street
19 rumble strips for traffic going either way?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Where there any driving violations that
22 you found that would have merit from Miss Farrell
23 arising out of this accident?
24 A. Nothing other than the maximum range of
25 speed was 63 miles per hour.
1 Q. Nothing else? I want to wait a couple
2 minutes, because I want you to think about that.
3 I'm not going to put pressure on you, but I'm
4 going to wait.
5 A. One of the other possibilities would be
6 a seat belt. In examination of her seat belt, I
7 didn't see any signs that she had it on at the time
8 of collision.
9 Q. Okay. Anything else?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Let me say -- and Mr. Wadding can
12 correct the record. I would say that I'll give you
13 more time if you want more time. I don't want to
14 make you uncomfortable, but since I first asked the
15 question, maybe a minute or two have gone by.
16 Would you agree with that?
17 A. Some time has elapsed
18 Q. And the record when there's silence, she
19 doesn't time it. So I just want to make the record
20 clear that I've given you enough time and will give
21 you more time if you what to have more time.
22 A. I don't recall anything else in my
23 investigation that would indicate anything else
24 other than the speeding and perhaps the seat belt.
25 Q. What is your understanding of the type
1 of electronic traffic control device that she was
3 A. That there's a stoplight, a typical
4 red-yellow-green traffic signal for both Hudson
5 Road and Greenhill Road. And at the time of the
6 collision, that she was going through the amber or
7 yellow flashing warning light.
8 Q. Isn't that --wasn't that a violation?
9 A. I don't know.
10 Q. Would you agree that the laws of the
11 State of Iowa say -- what you call a flashing amber
12 is really like flashing yellow? Is that one and
13 the same?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. That the person approaching an
16 intersection with a flashing yellow has the legal
17 obligation to proceed with caution, yield the
18 right-of-way to vehicles already in the cross-- in
19 the intersection?
20 A. I would have to research the amber
21 lights in the 321 traffic code. I haven't read
22 that in such a long time, I don't recall how it's
24 Q. But as you sit there and think about it,
25 a person who has a yellow flashing light has a
1 legal obligation to proceed through that
2 intersection with caution, do they not?
3 A. I believe the code book days yes, they
4 would, but not really any more then they would for
5 any other intersection.
6 Q. And isn't the law that people have to go
7 through intersections, slow down as they approach
8 intersections to make certain that they can pass
9 through them safely?
10 A. Uncontrolled intersections, yes.
11 Q. And wouldn't those who thing be
12 violations on the part of Miss Farrell?
13 A. Again I would want to read it out of 321
14 code to see where it would fall into. The amber
15 light is a warning light to the driver of that lane
16 of travel. But to the legal obligation, I don't
18 Q. Would you not agree that Miss Farrell's
19 head would have been turned to her right in the
20 matter of the seconds prior to her going through
21 that intersection, otherwise she would have seen
22 the vehicle and taken some evasive action?
23 A. I would agree that had she been
24 attentive in front of her, she would have been able
25 to see something. Whether her head was turned to
1 the right or she was staring at her radio or
2 whatever, I don't know.
3 Q. Peripheral vision would have allowed her
4 to see something and would therefore cause the
5 natural reflex of an evasive act, would it not?
6 A. I would think so.
7 Q. And am I correct to say that you first
8 made your findings regarding speed know to -- your
9 formal conclusions regarding speed were first made
10 known sometime after February 6, 1997?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. You didn't give any preliminary opinions
13 until you had a final opinion; would that be fair
14 to say?
15 A. I don't think so. That would go kind of
16 against I guess my expertise, if you will.
17 Q. MR. CORRELL: Let me just talk to my
18 client. I may be done.
20 MR. CORRELL: I have no further
21 questions. I guess I would like to -- you know, I
22 have an outstanding motion on this, and the Court
23 is going to set it up. IS Diane here?
24 MR. WADDING: Diane ? No. No,
25 she's not. She must not have gotten my message.
1 (Discussion off the record)
2 MR. CORRELL: I have no further
3 questions for Mr. Baskerville. But before you go,
4 I'd like to be able to go up and make my record on
5 me getting access to these -- to this report and
6 these two drawings of Phil's.
7 MR. WADDING: I just have one question
8 for Phil before we close the deposition and I'll
9 respond to that, if that' s all right, and we will
10 let Phil go.
13 BY MR. WADDING:
14 Q. I would ask, Mr. Baskerville, is it
15 unusual for attorneys or insurance adjuster or
16 claims adjusters to contact you with reference to
17 automobile accidents?
18 A. No, it's not.
19 Q. And did you consider it unusual that
20 Mr. Dunakey would call you to make inquiry of you?
21 A. No.
22 Q. And have you had any contact with
23 anybody else with reference to this incident aside
24 from myself obviously, and Mr. Dunakey, and claims
25 or -- claims representatives or anything that you
2 A. No, I don't believe so.
3 MR. WADDING: Okay. That's all the
4 questions I have.
5 MR. CORRELL: I have nothing further.
6 MR. WADDING: As far as the report is
7 concerned, I would just state on the record that
8 Mr. Correll has had access to those reports not
9 only during --simply reviewing the State's case
10 as he's been allowed to do, but also during the
11 course of his deposition he as had the
12 opportunity to review that report as well, have it
13 read into the record, as well as having an
14 opportunity to review these diagrams as indicated.
15 MR. CORRELL: Okay. Let me say, that's
16 not exactly right. I've reviewed the file, and in
17 the file there was the two-page report of
18 Mr. Baskerville dated February 6. Never in the
19 file when I reviewed it were any diagrams. And I
20 don't know if you meant to imply that or not. But
21 that -- there has never been and I would think
22 Mr. Baskerville could --
23 MR. WADDING: I think that that's
24 correct. If I implied that there was a map, any
25 kind of diagram in here, then I was mistaken.
1 Cause I don't recall a diagram either.
2 MR. CORRELL: Shall we go?
3 MR. WADDING: Sure.
4 (Deposition concluded at 3:15 p.m.)