Video Surveillance in Personal Injury Cases

The defense in personal injury cases often uses hidden cameras to record the plaintiff and try to prove that they’re not as injured as they claim. The technology for this has gotten better, making it easier to use in court. There are legal issues around using this kind of surveillance, like how it’s discovered and used in court. It also raises concerns about trespassing and invading privacy. This article will talk about these legal issues. The court allowed surveillance to investigate a personal injury claim, but also said it can’t be done in a way that harasses or intimidates the person making the claim. They said there’s a balance between investigating fraud and respecting the privacy of the person making the claim. In this case, the court said the investigator went too far by openly following the person, and the case couldn’t be resolved without a trial. If someone invades your privacy during a lawsuit, like by spying on you in public or at home, you have the right to ask for any surveillance tapes or recordings they have of you. The defense usually wants to wait until after your deposition (a formal statement given under oath) to show you the surveillance video, so that you can’t change your testimony based on what’s in the video. But sometimes the court can order them to show you the video before your deposition. Just be aware that the defense might not show you the video right away, and that’s okay as long as they eventually give it to you before the trial. The Holloways’ lawyer argued that they should not use a video at the trial because they didn’t get the full video before the trial. The judge punished the defense by not allowing any video to be used at trial. But it turned out the missing part of the video didn’t have anything important. The jury ruled in favor of the Holloways, but Dr. Beck appealed. The appeals court said the trial court was wrong to exclude the whole video without even looking at it first. In another case, a court also wouldn’t let a video be used as evidence because it wasn’t listed in the pretrial order and the defense didn’t explain why they didn’t do the surveillance earlier. If the surveillance video isn’t listed for trial, it might still be allowed if it doesn’t harm the other side. In one case, the court allowed a defendant to use a video at trial even though it wasn’t listed beforehand. The court said that as long as the other side wasn’t surprised and had known about the video for a while, it wasn’t unfair to let it be used. So if you want to use a video in a trial, make sure the other side knows about it ahead of time. In a court case, video surveillance needs to be authenticated, or proven to be real and accurate. In one case, the court made a mistake by allowing a surveillance video to be used as evidence without proving it was real. The person in the video objected because they couldn’t question the person who made the video about what was left out. Even though the court made a mistake, it didn’t change the outcome of the case. In the case King v. Auto Supply of Jupiter, Inc., a surveillance video was used in a workers’ compensation case. The video was not allowed as evidence because it wasn’t verified by the person who made it. However, the court ruled that the records custodian of the surveillance company could testify about the video because it was part of their regular business activities. They showed that the video was made at the time of the event, based on information from someone who knew about it, and was kept as part of their normal business practice. So, the video was allowed as evidence in the case. A surveillance video is not considered hearsay because it is not a statement made by a person. It is more like a photograph and needs to be authenticated. If there is no witness to authenticate the video, it can still be admitted under the “silent witness” theory, which requires proof of the video’s reliability and that it was not tampered with. Surveillance videos can be used as evidence in court, but they have to accurately show what actually happened. If someone thinks a video has been changed or edited, they have to raise specific concerns about it. The court may compare the original video to the edited one to check its authenticity. If the video could be unfair or misleading to the jury, it might not be allowed as evidence. In one case, the court didn’t allow a video from a bar because it was confusing and didn’t help the jury understand what happened. The people involved in the case can also show the video to a doctor and ask for their opinion on it. This can help support their case in court. Lopez got hurt in a motorcycle accident with an employee of H & H Electric. H & H got a video of Lopez washing his car and riding his motorcycle a while after the accident. They showed it to their doctor, who changed his opinion about how badly Lopez was hurt. The video was allowed as evidence in court, but the doctor couldn’t talk about how it made him change his mind. The court said the jury could decide what the video showed, and the appeals court agreed with that decision. If a surveillance video shows that someone is lying about their injury in a personal injury case, their complaint can be dismissed for fraud on the court. However, this is a high standard to meet and not every case will meet it. One court case in Florida did not dismiss the complaint even though the plaintiff was caught lying on a surveillance video. The use of surveillance videos in personal injury cases is becoming more popular and can be effective in challenging a plaintiff’s claims. It also raises legal issues around privacy and use at trial. A court case determined that a detective agency invaded someone’s privacy by snooping around their house and following them in public. Covert audio recordings are illegal, and the contents of surveillance photos and videos can only be discovered in certain situations. This article discusses the factors that a judge considers when deciding whether to allow a witness to testify in a trial. It also mentions specific cases and Florida laws related to this issue. The authors are attorneys who work in West Palm Beach and focus on personal injury and government bid protests. The article is submitted by the Trial Lawyers Section of The Florida Bar.

Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/video-surveillance-in-personal-injury-cases/