In his cross-examination, the witness was asked about the damage to the vehicles and testified, that the front of the defendant's vehicle hit the front left corner of the Kia vehicle involved in the left front wheel area.
The witness was presented with his son's testimony and he was asked:
"Q. I didn't just ask you if you and your son saw the same accident, your son says that the defendant's car arrived, swerved to the left from the direction of his travel and was hit by a front of a vehicle mixed in the right side of the defendant's car and then the defendant's car lifted up, made a 360-degree reversal and he didn't see how it landed, what do you say? Is what your son describes also what you saw?
A. I didn't see the defendant's car overturn, I saw it in the air. What I saw at that moment was the defendant's car upstairs." (See his testimony of January 8,2025, p. 34, paras. 25-30).
The witness was asked about the gap between his testimony and the actual damages in the accident, which are front against front, and that he made a mistake and testifiedBecause that's what he saw and he can't deny what he's seen.
When Forever Says, because what he perceived did not correspond to what happened and that the defendant's vehicle remained upside down in its lane and that the vehicle involved was on the right side and may have made a mistake, replied that it could have been.
The witness was shown a video of the field of vision experiment conducted by the examiner, from which it is not possible to see the vehicle that came in front of him, and when you see the beams of light, you cannot say that it is a deviation, and he testified:
"A. That in such a situation that you show me in the video I didn't see, when I referred to the lights I saw it was in a larger center and I didn't see a road anymore, I saw the lights in the distance. I saw lights that turned right and left.
Q. I showed you earlier that you can't see the lights in the video and you can't see the defendant's car, see the meter 20:25:47. So how can you say that you saw farther away? That if you don't see on this meter, you probably can't see more from the front side?
A. When I saw the lights, I didn't see a road, I didn't see lanes, I only saw lights.
Q. Could it be that it wasn't the defendant's car at all and you just saw lights?
A. I saw lights approaching, I didn't see who or what.
Q. I ask you from your testimony to the police: "At a certain point I noticed a car coming in the opposite lane and I saw that it swerved twice toward the lane we were driving, twice it entered our lane and returned to its lane, and the third time it swerved into our lane and collided with the car?"
On the face of it, you tell me in your own testimony that you saw the car that caused the accident 3 times deviatedDo you retract this after you said that you don't know what kind of car it is at all and you only saw lights? Do you retract that you saw this car of the defendant that swerved 3 times?
A. I saw lights, not this vehicle.
To Beyham's question"Q, the same lights that move, these are the same lights of the vehicle that made the
The picture?
The witness replies: I didn't see any more lightsThat's the only light I've seen.
To Beyham's question"Q, is this the same car that caused the accident?
The witness replies: I assumed that." (See his testimony of 8 January 2025, pp. 36-37, paras. 1-33,1-5).