Interim summary: The direction of the crossing is the basis for all the calculations made by the defense expert. The witness, in his own words, defined the determination of the direction of the crossing as "critical to the understanding of the accident and the possibility of preventing it" (paragraph 13 of the opinion). Where this basis is undermined, then all the calculations and all the conclusions reached by the witness are irrelevant. However, in many respects more than necessary, we will need to look at the formulas used by the expert, and the difficulties learned from the way he walked.
One difficulty in the expert's manner of motion relates to the use of the "throwing formula" without considering the question of whether it is a "forward toss", a "casing throw", a "side toss", or a "throw over the roof", given that each such throw has a different formula. The question in this matter grew because in the case at hand, there was no dispute that it was a "casing throw" in which the body of the deceased first "wrapped" the bumper of the Dodge, his head hit the hood, and only later, due to the height of the Dodge, did it fly forward and not to the rear of the vehicle.
The second difficulty relates to the very use of the throwing formula in the aforementioned situation. This formula is used on the assumption that the brake vehicle moves to the impact, i.e., immediately after the impact, there is a disconnect between the vehicle that slows down and the body that receives the speed of the offending vehicle is flown forward. However, in the case at hand, the defendant does not brake at all to hit the deceased, nor afterwards.
Even if the defense expert found to use the throwing formula, he should have taken into account that in a situation in which the offending vehicle does not brake, there is a certain period of time in which the deceased "sticks" to the front of the vehicle until, due to gravity, it drops and falls onto the road. None of the parties disputed the aforementioned phenomenon, and they disagreed only with regard to the question of whether it was a long distance or a short distance (according to the expert witness, it was a short distance). Either way, there is no dispute that the expert witness did not give expression to that "transportation distance" in his calculations.