Implications of Surveillance Footage in PA Injury Lawsuits
Surveillance footage acts as a silent witness, capturing events as they unfold and providing an objective record that can be invaluable in legal proceedings after an accident in Pennsylvania.
In a lawsuit, evidence is key. Evidence is proof of the events that one or both parties claim took place, and without that proof, the matter can become an issue of “he said, she said.” Evidence can take many forms, including written records, witness statements, photos, and video surveillance footage. Surveillance footage can be used in different ways, depending on the lawsuit. One way is to show the events that took place that led to the lawsuit, such as a video from a retail store displaying how the plaintiff slipped and fell. Another way is to show that one of the parties is lying about something like footage that shows a plaintiff is not as injured as they claim or that a defendant’s claims about fixing a hazard are untrue.
However, there are many rules surrounding surveillance footage, including when and how it can be used. If you are involved in a lawsuit and believe that there is video footage that may support or damage your claim, consulting with an attorney may help you determine whether the footage can be used and what you need to do to have it admitted into your lawsuit as evidence. Contact our renowned team of Pennsylvania personal injury attorneys today at (215) 337-4915 to discuss your case and learn more about how surveillance footage may help or hinder your case.
Pennsylvania Surveillance Laws
There is no state law that prevents hidden cameras from recording in any location where people should not expect privacy. Cameras cannot be placed or used in areas where individuals would expect privacy, such as bathrooms, bedrooms, locker or changing rooms, or break rooms. Additionally, while video footage is allowed, state wiretapping laws indicate that audio recordings require the consent of all parties involved unless the audio recording is being made by law enforcement with a warrant or the audio recording is being made in a public place without expectation of privacy. However, even in a public place without an expectation of privacy, it is a good idea to be transparent about recording, both video and audio.
If properly recorded video or audio surveillance footage exists that can provide additional context or evidence in a lawsuit, Pennsylvania law allows it to be admitted as evidence so long as it otherwise meets the admissibility criteria. This criteria goes beyond simply being properly recorded.
Insights into the Admissibility of Surveillance Footage in PA Lawsuits
The most important criteria for the admissibility of surveillance footage in Pennsylvania courts is the footage’s relevance to the lawsuit. Per Pennsylvania’s Rule of Evidence 402, if the evidence is irrelevant, it will not be admitted. Under that same rule, if the evidence is relevant, then it is admissible unless another law prohibits it from being admitted.
Pennsylvania’s Rule of Evidence 401 indicates that evidence is considered relevant if it tends to make a fact in question in the case more or less probable than it would have been without such evidence and that the fact in question is of consequence in determining the case. This means that the surveillance footage must show something that helps prove a fact in the case is true or untrue. The fact is of consequence in determining the case if it directly relates to making a decision in the case. For example, if a plaintiff is injured on an individual’s property and the owner claims the plaintiff was breaking and entering, the plaintiff’s criminal record may be of consequence if the plaintiff has a history of breaking and entering.
Factors Considered to Determine if Video Surveillance can be Used as Evidence in a PA Personal Injury Case
While the Rules of Evidence state that surveillance footage is admissible if it is relevant and defines what makes it relevant, there are other legal standards that must be met and specific factors that are considered when determining the footage’s admissibility. These factors include a closer examination of the footage’s relevance to the case, as well as its authenticity and the chain of custody, how clear the footage is, and whether it may be prejudicial or unfair to the individual in the video.
Relevance To The Case: How It Filters Surveillance Footage for Potential Value
Relevance to the case is perhaps the most crucial legal standard for admissibility. Without a requirement that the evidence is relevant, either or both parties could submit mountains of alleged evidence that is not relevant and confuse a jury about how to determine which information should be used in their decision about the case. For this reason, relevance can often be very narrowly defined. In the case of surveillance footage, it may be limited to footage that specifically shows the event in question. On the other hand, relevance can also be broadly defined, such as when a private investigator has footage of a plaintiff intended to prove the plaintiff is not as severely injured as they claim or when the plaintiff has footage intended to show that a hazard that caused their injury existed for a long period before the plaintiff’s accident.
Authenticity and Chain of Custody: Why Verifying Video Evidence is Crucial in the Age of Technological Advancements
As technology advances, it can become more and more difficult to verify the authenticity of video surveillance footage. Video can be edited, with sections removed and spliced at different points to change the order of events. Focal lengths, camera angles, and lighting can all change who or what appears to be in a video. Distances can be changed and action sped up or slowed down to make the events look more commonplace or emergent than they are. All of these things can call into question whether what appears to be happening in the surveillance footage is actually happening.
Chain of custody also matters. When too many people have had an opportunity to view, edit, or store the footage, or when it is not possible to determine where the footage originated, its authenticity becomes even more questionable. However, if an individual provides footage from their security or doorbell camera directly to law enforcement or their attorney, it can be easier to authenticate and be confident the surveillance footage has not been altered.
Clarity and Quality of Surveillance Footage: Determining if it Leads to More Questions than Answers
Everyone has seen grainy, black-and-white, tiny images on a computer or television screen in a security office, whether in real life or on television or in a movie. These unclear, low-quality videos can make it extremely difficult to identify who is in the footage or what they are doing. Footage that is taken from too far a distance, lighting that is too low, or where the action taking place is partially obscured by walls, shelves, or other obstacles may also be unclear and low-quality.
If the surveillance footage is too unclear and low-quality, it may not be admissible even if it is otherwise relevant because relevance includes the requirement that it makes a fact in question more or less probable; an unclear or low-quality video may not be relevant because it does not make a fact more or less probable.
Potential Prejudice or Unfairness: Ensuring Surveillance Footage Doesn’t Unfairly Influence the Jury
In some cases, surveillance footage may be potentially prejudicial or unfair. If that is the case, then it may not be admitted. Evidence that is prejudicial or unfair is evidence that might cause a jury to make an improper decision based on emotion, shock, or other factors. For example, if a plaintiff is suing a store for a slip and fall accident, and the store has surveillance footage that shows the plaintiff buys alcohol from that store daily, this could be prejudicial or unfair. It would imply that the plaintiff drinks frequently, cause the jury to think the plaintiff may have been impaired by alcohol, and thus find the plaintiff responsible for their own injuries. However, if there is no other evidence that the plaintiff had been drinking at the time of the slip and fall, this would be an improper decision based on the footage.
What Surveillance Footage Can Offer in Personal Injury Proceedings
Surveillance footage can be used in a number of ways in a lawsuit. Because it can be used in so many ways, it can be important to do an extensive search to find any surveillance footage that may exist related to a lawsuit, as this footage may be very useful if admitted.
Demonstrate the Sequence of Events
Surveillance footage often clarifies disputes in Car Accident Cases. In some cases, there may be a question about the order in which things happened. Both drivers may insist that the other ran a stop sign first in a car accident, for example. Surveillance footage can be used in these cases to demonstrate the sequence of events and clear up what truly happened. This can quickly clear up many questions surrounding the case and potentially allow for a quicker resolution.
Show the Extent of Injuries or Damages
Sometimes, the extent of someone’s injuries or damages can seem to be much worse than expected for the circumstances. Being told that someone slipped and fell and was diagnosed with a traumatic brain injury (TBI) may sound unreasonable, but if surveillance footage shows that the individual slipped, then fell over a stair handrail and fell ten feet to a concrete floor, it becomes much more clear how the slip and fall resulted in a TBI. This can also hold true for property damage and other damages.
Verify or Challenge Witness Recollections
Some events happen quickly and the eyes can play tricks on an individual. Additionally, human memory can be unreliable sometimes. Surveillance footage can be used to corroborate, or confirm, a witness’s testimony, or to contradict it. This can be extremely helpful if there are very few witnesses or if there are multiple witnesses with differing accounts of what happened.
Undermine a Witness’s Credibility
While it may not be a common occurrence, sometimes witnesses do not tell the truth. This may be an intentional lie or it might be a matter of bias, ego, or even personal feelings about one or both parties. For example, the witness may overestimate their ability to see a person clearly from a certain distance, or they may dislike one of the parties and allow their personal beliefs about the individual to influence their recollection of events. Surveillance footage can be used in these instances to prove that a witness is not credible and their testimony should be discounted.
Types of Pennsylvania Accident Claims where Surveillance Footage can Play a Role
There are many accident cases where surveillance footage can be used. Slip and fall incidents, motor vehicle accidents, and workplace accidents are three specific types of accidents where surveillance footage can be particularly helpful.
Slip And Fall Incidents
Slip and fall incidents often require proving that the property owner was aware of a hazard, did not repair the hazard, and did not warn the slip and fall victim of the hazard. Surveillance footage can be beneficial in proving all three of these. In these cases, surveillance footage may show that the property owner walked past the hazard multiple times or even looked right at the hazard, indicating awareness. The footage may also be used to show how long the hazard existed with the owner’s awareness, and might even show that the owner never warned the victim that the hazard existed with any signage or other means of warning them.
Motor Vehicle Accidents
There are often many questions in a motor vehicle accident. Who hit who? Did both parties have a stop sign? Did one party run a red light? Did one driver see the other driver before they pulled out in front of them? These questions and others may often be answered by surveillance footage. Cameras that are angled just right may show traffic signs and signals, or give other insights that make it easier to determine who is at fault. If there was a third party that may have contributed to the accident, surveillance footage may provide their tag number or other information that allows the injured party to track them down and file a claim against them.
Workplace Injuries
Typically, workplace injuries are compensated by Workers’ Compensation. In some cases, Workers’ Compensation may deny the claim if they believe the individual was not engaged in work-related activities when the injury occurred. In others, a workplace accident victim may have a negligence claim against a third party for their injuries. In either of those cases, surveillance footage may help to prove what happened to the injured employee and allow them to pursue their Workers’ Compensation claim or negligence claim.
Requesting and Producing Surveillance Footage in the Pennsylvania Discovery Process
Television and movies frequently show a witness being shocked at the sudden presentation of evidence, often as video or audio recordings. However, actually being in court is much different. In reality, there is a process called discovery in which both sides are required to share with the other side all evidence they plan to present. This is so that each side has time to prepare. This preparation includes knowing what facts will be presented and being able to create a defense against them.
However, Pennsylvania courts handle surveillance footage a little differently than other types of evidence, particularly in personal injury cases. The general consensus is that if the footage will be introduced as evidence during the trial, it must be disclosed as part of the interrogatories during discovery and a copy provided to the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney in a timely manner. However, the defense has the right to depose the plaintiff before disclosing the existence of the footage or producing a copy. It is unclear whether Pennsylvania courts require the disclosure of surveillance footage when there is no intention to use the footage during the trial.
Mitigating and Resolving Problems with Surveillance Footage in Personal Injury Cases
Even when surveillance footage has been admitted into evidence, there may still be issues with the footage. However, it may be possible to mitigate or overcome those issues.
Poor Quality or Incomplete Footage
Poor quality footage, such as grainy, blurry, or footage that is shot from too far away can make it difficult to prove that the individual in the footage is the plaintiff. A defense attorney may try to find something in the video to prove it is the plaintiff, such as a unique piece of jewelry or tattoo. However, if there are no unique identifying features, a plaintiff or their attorney may be able to argue that it is not possible to clearly identify who the individual is.
Incomplete footage may show a plaintiff’s actions just prior to being injured, or show what happened after the injury. A defense attorney may try to use this to claim the plaintiff was not injured the way they claim. A plaintiff or their attorney may be able to overcome incomplete footage or claims that the injury didn’t occur the way it did by searching for other cameras that may provide other angles of the incident, witnesses who saw the incident, or hiring an expert witness who can testify about the injuries and how they would have been caused.
Tampering or Editing of the Footage
Tampering with or editing of the surveillance footage to provide a narrative the defense wants, such as that the plaintiff is not injured or not as severely injured as they claim, is not an unfounded fear with the technological advances in both cameras and editing software. Plaintiffs or their attorneys can mitigate this by carefully reviewing the footage and the chain of custody for authenticity. If there are doubts about whether the footage has been tampered with or edited, they may want to hire an expert who can review the footage and look for signs of such tampering or editing. These signs might include missing, dropped, or out-of-order frames, discrepancies with timestamps, out-of-sync audio, sudden jumps, and inconsistencies in shadows, reflections, and lighting. Additionally, an analysis of the metadata to ensure the file format and other characteristics match can also help prove whether the footage has been edited in some way.
Privacy Concerns
Depending on when and how the surveillance footage was obtained, there can be concerns about the invasion of the plaintiff’s privacy. For example, if the surveillance footage was obtained by a private investigator, they may have followed the plaintiff too closely in public, snooped around the plaintiff’s home or knocked on the door using false pretenses, or otherwise behaved in a way that invaded the plaintiff’s privacy. There may also be other people, such as the plaintiff’s spouse, children, neighbors, other family or friends, who appear in the footage whose privacy may be a concern. These concerns may be more difficult to overcome, particularly if the footage was taken in public places. A plaintiff’s attorney may need to speak with the judge regarding the privacy concerns and ask for the video to be removed from the evidence.
Wondering How to Handle Surveillance Footage in Your Pennsylvania Personal Injury Lawsuit? Contact Our Bensalem Attorneys Today
Our skilled personal injury lawyers with local offices in Bensalem, PA, can be very effective in utilizing surveillance footage in a lawsuit. We can assist with preserving, obtaining, and analyzing the footage, as well as confirming the footage’s relevance, ensuring it was legally obtained, and verifying that it has not been altered. If the footage will be used in court, our attorneys can assist with ensuring that it accurately reflects the events that took place. Whether the footage comes from a traffic camera, a store security camera, a private investigator, or another source, our legal team at Cohen & Riechelson diligently works to ensure that witnesses are prepared to testify about the events in the footage. If you have been injured and believe that surveillance footage may be available to help prove your case in Morrisville, Bensalem, Warminster, Buckingham, Levittown, or elsewhere in Northeast Philadelphia and greater Pennsylvania. Contact a Pennsylvania personal injury attorney at our firm today at (215) 337-4915 to review your case and learn more about your legal rights. We provide free consultations and case reviews to best serve your needs.