I.

Conceptual clarification questions

1. What is the nature of the accident; will you briefly explain the events that transpired?
2. What do we know about the events, what are all the details you can recall?

Probing assumptions

3. How did you come to believe that the Defendant was at fault at the intersection?
4. Please explain why you believe those events show that the Plaintiff had to act differently?

Probing rationale, reasons, and evidence

5. Please explain how the plaintiff should have correctly acted at the intersection?
6. How can you verify that which you have explained about the Plaintiff?

Other possible valid viewpoints

7. Is it not possible to that what actually transpired was that the plaintiff was acting accordingly
he had the right of way?
8. What if you looked at what the plaintiff saw while he approached the intersection?

Probe implications and consequences

9. What would happen if the plaintiff had believed that he stopped first at the intersection and
had the right of way?
10. What are the implications of whether the plaintiff did have the right of way and you may
have incorrectly assumed otherwise?

Questions about the questions

11. What was the point of asking whether the plaintiff has to pay damages for his fault if it’s not
clear that he/she was correct in obeying the rules of the road?
12. What do you think is the importance of asking such a question?