In the instant case, the plaintiff

In the instant case, the plaintiff was ejected from her car, which subsequently rolled over her body causing a broken leg.The defense expert stated that she would have remained in the car had she used her seat belt, and that she would have sustained only minor injuries had she not been ejected. On cross-examination, plaintiff's counsel was unsuccessful in his attempts to undermine either of these opinions of the expert. In view of what has previously been stated, we hold that the trial court properly submitted this issue to the jury.

結果 (繁體中文) 1:

在本案中，原告是從她的車，隨後翻了她的身體造成了破leg.The防務專家說，她會留在車上了，她用她的安全帶彈出，她會只持續輕傷如果她沒有被彈出。在質證，原告的律師在他企圖破壞任何的專家的這些觀點是不成功的。鑑於何先前已經指出，我們認為，原審法院正確提交這一問題向陪審團。

結果 (繁體中文) 2:

在本案中，原告被從車裡彈出，隨後翻過她的身體，造成一條斷腿。辯方專家說，如果她使用安全帶，她將留在車裡，如果她沒有被彈出，她只會受了輕傷。在盤問時，原告的律師試圖破壞專家的這些意見均告失敗。鑒於先前說過的話，我們認為，審判法院適當地向陪審團提交了這個問題。

結果 (繁體中文) 3:

在本案中，原告被逐出汽車，汽車隨後從她身上翻過，導致腿部骨折，辯護專家稱，如果她使用安全帶，她將留在車內，如果她沒有被逐出，她只會受輕傷。在盤問中，原告律師試圖破壞專家的這兩種意見中的任何一種，均未成功。鑒於先前所述，我們認為，初審法院適當地向陪審團提交了這一問題。