Using geological information to identify apparent ‘misrepresentation’ of facts in a litigious situation

Abstract

Abstract On 7 November 1980, a motorcyclist entered a curve in a fog-shrouded, marshy area. The cyclist subsequently stated that his helmet visor suddenly ‘fogged up’, and that he was unable to raise the visor. The motorcycle slid out of control, throwing the rider into the path of an oncoming car; the impact led to the surgical removal of his left leg. The victim sued the local motorcycle dealer and the motorcycle visor manufacturer, alleging that he had not been advised that the visor could not be raised. A number of lines of evidence argued against the plaintiff’s version of the events. Index of refraction, X-ray diffraction and fluorescence analyses clearly showed that the visor on the plaintiff’s helmet was not of the same material as visors sold by the defendants. Furthermore, although the plaintiff claimed he had purchased the visor the night before the accident, the visor had a curvature that could have been acquired only from being attached to the helmet for a number of weeks. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) disclosed scratches that were found to contain orthoclase feldspar. The accident site, however, was on the Plio-Pleistocene Citronelle Formation, which is completely devoid of feldspar. Each of these points was used to show that the visor had not been purchased the night before the accident. The outcome of the trial, however, showed that nothing is certain in a court of law.