As to the reaction of the brakes at the rear, the expert agreed with the explanations of the prosecution expert that as soon as there is a jump and landing, the brakes contract slightly, and even agreed that theoretically, when the brakes are released, the landing force of a heavy body is greater than that of a lightweight body, but claimed that according to the description given to him, there could not have been a jump to the height as claimed [Prov. at p. 92]. The expert also explained that he believes that there was no significant jump due to the fact that in preparation for the ride on the cattle crossing, it can be assumed that the driver is braking and slowing down.
- As stated, in view of the fact that the two experts did not simulate driving at the scene of the incident on a motorcycle of the same model, did not perform accurate measurements, and did not make engineering or physical calculations, the contribution of the opinions and testimonies is limited and limited from the outset. It was evident that each of the experts tended to accept the data presented to him by the person who ordered the opinion and base his conclusions on it. The two experts could not say exactly where the ride was on the cattle barrier and what was the height of the step at that point, from which the height of the jump or the vibration that gripped the motorcycle was derived.
At the same time, after reviewing the opinion and hearing the expert testimonies, I am of the opinion that the expert opinion on behalf of the prosecution should be preferred, if only to a certain extent.
- The prosecution's expert explained the mechanism of the incident and its effect on the plaintiff's body in a professional and convincing manner, and explained why the physical forces acting when releasing the brake spring caused the blow felt by the plaintiff to be relatively strong. The defense expert tended to agree with this assertion from a theoretical point of view, but determined that there was no significant jump in height, due to the measurement he made at the Cattle Prevention Passage Center, according to his conclusion from the plaintiff's statements. From the defense expert's statements, it appears that he assumed that the trip was in the part where the elevation difference was smallest, even though this fact is disputed, and based his conclusions on this. On the other hand, the expert on behalf of the prosecution did not pretend to determine exactly where the trip took place and whether or not there was a jump of the plaintiff in the air, but only determined that it was possible, and that it remained to be decided whether the plaintiff's version should be accepted. The expert clarified that contrary to the way things were presented, he does not claim that the motorcycle lifted up and jumped in the air, but that the body lifted up, and this description seems plausible.
The expert on behalf of the prosecution further explained that the "synergistic accumulation" that he defined for the purpose of describing the effect of the incident on the plaintiff refers to the description of the forces acting when the body rises from the rear seat and the encounter with the seat when the spring of the rear brakes is released, which creates a stronger impact. Contrary to what is claimed in the defense expert opinion and in the summaries on behalf of the defendant, the expression "synergistic accumulation" does not refer to a collection of separate events of tremor or vibration that may create a cumulative effect of injury, but rather to the number of forces acting during the jump-landing event itself and accumulating to the result of an impact, and therefore there is a possibility that it is a specific accidental event.