---
title: "Accident Reconstruction Expert’s Testimony About Each Vehicle’s Damage Admitted"
meta:
  "og:description": "Accident reconstruction expert relied on peer-reviewed engineering and scientific literature as well as the laws of physics"
  "og:title": "Accident Reconstruction Expert’s Testimony About Each Vehicle’s Damage Admitted"
  author: "Expert Witness Profiler"
  description: "Accident reconstruction expert relied on peer-reviewed engineering and scientific literature as well as the laws of physics"
---

# Accident Reconstruction Expert’s Testimony About Each Vehicle’s Damage Admitted

Posted on April 2, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler

On March 12, 2021, Linda Maraldo was waiting at a red light in her 2017 Chevrolet Sonic. Behind her, Cynthia O’Hara was operating a United States Postal Service (“USPS”) box truck. When the light turned green, O’Hara took her foot off the brake, causing the truck to move forward and collide with Maraldo’s vehicle. Maraldo claims to have suffered neck and back pain as a result.

### **Expert Opinion**

Government expert [Dr. Jennifer Yaek](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Jennifer-Yaek/1531089) conducted accident reconstruction and biomechanical analyses of the rear-end collision between Maraldo’s vehicle and the USPS box truck.

In preparing her expert report, Yaek reviewed several sources of information, including: (1) information about the accident, (2) eight photographs of the vehicles involved in the crash and the site of the crash, (3) repair and maintenance records for both vehicles, and (4) Maraldo’s medical records.

Yaek’s assessment of vehicle damage was solely based on the documents and photographs supplied by the government, as she did not conduct a physical inspection of either vehicle.

#### **1. Accident Reconstruction Analysis**

Yaek’s accident reconstruction analysis led her to conclude that the maximum change in velocity, or delta-V, of Maraldo’s vehicle was approximately 5 miles per hour, that the closing/impact speed of the USPS truck was approximately 6-6.5 miles per hour, and that the principal direction of force applied to Maraldo’s vehicle was 6 o’clock “with 12 o’clock being straight ahead on the vehicle.” 

Yaek’s crush analysis began with calculating how much force acted on the rear of Maraldo’s vehicle and, similarly, on the front of the USPS truck. To calculate the force that acted on the rear of Maraldo’s vehicle, Yaek used photos of the vehicle’s “undeformed rear bumper and publicly available, peer-reviewed engineering and scientific literature.”

Yaek next used the Crash Investigation Sampling System from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to evaluate her delta-V calculation relative to the delta-V values in two other accidents where a vehicle rear-ended a Chevy Sonic. 

#### **2. Biomechanical Analysis**

Yaek’s biomechanical analysis led her to conclude that the accident “did not provide sufficient forces to cause motion of Maraldo’s cervical or lumbar spine beyond the physiological range of motion, and would most likely not provide the type or magnitude of loading consistent with mechanisms for acute spinal injury beyond transient spinal strain.”

Yaek used the laws of physics to determine that Maraldo would have moved initially rearward and then rebound forward during the collision. She compared the loads that Maraldo’s spine would have experienced during the accident to “injury tolerances” and “loading experienced in physical tasks and activities of daily living.”

Yaek further drew on biomechanical and peer-reviewed studies in finding that Maraldo’s accident could not have resulted in disc herniation, protrusion, or bulging absent damage to adjacent bony structures.

### **_Daubert_ Motion**

Maraldo contended that Yaek’s accident reconstruction opinions are unreliable and based on speculation. Specifically, Maraldo asserted that Yaek did not perform a crush analysis and instead based her conclusions on a limited review of only one photograph of each vehicle. Furthermore, Maraldo argues that Yaek lacked crucial information regarding the distance traveled by the USPS truck until impact, the speed of the USPS truck, the starting positions of the vehicles pre-impact, or the resting positions of the vehicles post-impact. 

## **Accident Reconstruction Expert** **Witness**

[Jennifer L. Yaek](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Jennifer-Yaek/1531089) has more than 25 years of extensive experience in accident reconstruction, vehicle dynamics, and data analysis.

She received her Master’s degree and PhD in biomechanical engineering with a concentration in impact biomechanics and has provided expertise in human injury tolerance, occupant kinematics, and rigid body dynamics associated with transportation related impacts, _inter alia_, since 2012.

In addition, Yaek has co-authored numerous publications, including a 2020 article on rear impact.

[Get the full story on challenges to Jennifer Yaek ‘s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study.](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/order/add?eId=1531089&amp;pId=3)

## **Discussion by the Court**

### **A. Challenges to Accident Reconstruction Opinions**

First, Yaek’s crush analysis consisted of three parts: (1) calculating how much force acted on the rear of Maraldo’s vehicle, (2) calculating how much force acted on the front of the USPS truck, and (3) calculating the total crush that both vehicles dissipated. In performing the crush analysis, Yaek reviewed multiple photos of both vehicles and relied on “publicly available, peer-reviewed engineering and scientific literature” as well as the laws of physics. 

The Court concluded that Maraldo did not adequately support her contention that a physical inspection of the vehicles was required for Yaek’s analysis. Specifically, Maraldo did not clarify the necessity of a physical inspection, the additional insights Yaek would have gained, or the specific information Yaek overlooked by not conducting one. This failure to provide a clear explanation weakened Maraldo’s position.

In conducting her accident reconstruction analysis, Yaek reviewed a traffic crash report from Michigan, a USPS accident investigation worksheet, and the deposition testimonies of both Linda Maraldo and Cynthia O’Hara. Notably, Maraldo does not contest the foundation of Yaek’s delta-V calculation and principal direction of force determination. Consequently, the Court finds no apparent issues with Yaek’s accident reconstruction analysis that would render her opinions inadmissible. Furthermore, Maraldo argues that Yaek’s report lacked the expected level of intellectual rigor for an accident reconstruction expert.

Yaek compared the current accident to two other rear-end collisions involving Chevy Sonics to evaluate her delta-V calculation against other delta-V calculations, utilizing details and calculations sourced from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Crash Investigation Sampling System. However, Maraldo has not provided any explanation as to why this sampling system is unreliable such that Yaek should have confirmed the details of the accidents in the system herself.

### **B.** **Challenges to the Biomechanics Opinions**

Maraldo argues that Yaek’s biomechanical analysis is grounded on an unreliable accident reconstruction analysis and is unsupported by the literature that Yaek cited in her report.

 Maraldo claims that the peer-reviewed literature that Yaek cites does not address injury tolerance and the effect of forces on an aged spine like Maraldo’s.

First, as discussed above, Yaek performed a reliable accident reconstruction analysis. To perform her biomechanical analysis, Yaek applied her delta-V calculation, principal direction of force determination, and the circumstances of the collision to describe how Maraldo’s body would have moved during the collision.

Yaek also compared the forces that Maraldo’s neck and back would have experienced during the accident to the forces that one’s neck and back might experience in accidents of similar or greater severity and in activities of daily living.

The Court finds that this analysis and the resulting opinions are reliable.

Second, Maraldo’s criticisms of the literature that Yaek cites are immaterial to any of the _[Daubert](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/daubert_standard)_ factors. At best, Maraldo’s critiques of the literature go to the weight of Yaek’s opinion, not its admissibility. 

## **Held**

Because Dr. Jennifer Yaek’s opinions meet the admissibility standards of [Federal Rule of Evidence 702](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_702#:~:text=Rule%20702%20sets%20forth%20the,is%20a%20relatively%20narrow%20inquiry.), the Court will not exclude them. The the Court, therefore, denied Maraldo’s motion to exclude the government’s expert opinions and testimony.

## **Key Takeaway:**

The Court affirmed Yaek’s methodologies, including her crush analysis, delta-V calculations, and comparisons to similar accidents and reliance on biomechanical studies, despite the Plaintiff’s challenges regarding the lack of physical inspection and the cited literature. The Court determined that the Plaintiff’s criticisms primarily went to the weight, not the admissibility, of the expert’s opinions.

## **Case Details:**

---

## **You Might Also Like**

![Intellectual Property Expert&#39;s Opinion on Misappropriation Excluded](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/blog-pic-640X480-2026-03-13T205412.117.jpg) [**Intellectual Property Expert’s Opinion on Misappropriation Excluded**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/accident-reconstruction-experts-testimony-about-each-vehicles-damage-admitted/intellectual-property-experts-opinion-on-misappropriation-excluded)![Automotive Industry Expert&#39;s Testimony on Pricing Practices Excluded](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/blog-pic-640X480-2026-03-13T191143.335.jpg) [**Automotive Industry Expert’s Testimony on Pricing Practices Excluded**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/accident-reconstruction-experts-testimony-about-each-vehicles-damage-admitted/automotive-industry-experts-testimony-on-pricing-practices-excluded)![Consumer Credit Expert Allowed to Opine on Mixed Files](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/blog-pic-640X480-2026-03-13T160600.039.jpg) [**Consumer Credit Expert Allowed to Opine on Mixed Files**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/accident-reconstruction-experts-testimony-about-each-vehicles-damage-admitted/consumer-credit-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-mixed-files)![Appraisal Expert&#39;s Testimony on Deceptiveness Excluded](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/blog-pic-640X480-2026-03-11T194055.299.jpg) [**Appraisal Expert’s Testimony on Deceptiveness Excluded**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/accident-reconstruction-experts-testimony-about-each-vehicles-damage-admitted/appraisal-experts-testimony-on-deceptiveness-excluded)![Psychology Expert Allowed to Opine on EMDR Therapy](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/blog-pic-640X480-2026-03-11T153456.164.jpg) [**Psychology Expert Allowed to Opine on EMDR Therapy**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/accident-reconstruction-experts-testimony-about-each-vehicles-damage-admitted/psychology-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-emdr-therapy)