John's client was falsely accused of running a red light, thereby causing a three-car collision. One of the drivers involved in the collision, Plaintiff, alleged injuries due to the accident.
Plaintiff's mother testified at trial that she arrived at the scene following the collision and heard John's client say that he was "trying to beat the light."
John's client and the third driver involved in the accident testified that John's client had a green light when he entered the intersection.
Plaintiff testified that she had not yet entered the intersection when John's client ran the red light and struck her vehicle, Plaintiff provided photographs of her vehicle, which she indicated were taken at the location of the impact. Those photographs were contradictory to Plaintiff's testimony, as her vehicle was positioned in the middle of the intersection.
Based on this inconsistency, the Court found John's client's version of the accident to be more credible than Plaintiff's, and therefore the Court entered judgment in favor of him.