A picture truly is worth a thousand words, especially when it comes to litigation.
This is even more true when the picture is of nothing at all. That is to say, a picture of the scene of the alleged incident is very helpful when it reveals that there was no hazardous condition or that the condition was blatantly obvious.
Even when a photograph shows that you or your employee is clearly at fault, it can still be very helpful because it allows you and your insurer to properly evaluate the claim and, if necessary, settle it early on before incurring significant attorney fees defending it.
Surveillance footage can also be immensely helpful, although sometimes it requires a little thinking outside of the box. While video of the actual incident may not be available, be sure to ask yourself and your employees:
• Is there video of the plaintiff walking around the premises afterward? This could be used to show the plaintiff was walking without any apparent injury after the incident.
• Is there video of other people successfully navigating the alleged hazard? This could be used to show the alleged hazard was open and obvious.
• Is there video of the hazard coming into existence? Or of employees inspecting the area? If it was just shortly before the incident, this could show a lack of notice.
Plaintiffs often erroneously assume that premises possessors are taping their entire facility and storing all the tapes indefinitely. However, in documenting an incident, the possibility of any surveillance footage existing should always be investigated.
If no video is found to exist, that should also be noted so the plaintiff cannot later complain that you failed to preserve evidence.
If you have any questions about how to document an incident using photographs or video, please contact your attorney to discuss the premise’s unique needs and situation.
Margaret A. Czuchaj is a member of the firm's Torts & Litigation Practice Group who focuses her practice in the areas of premises and retail liability, as well as claims related to first and third party auto negligence.
Ms. Czuchaj ...
Add a comment
SubscribeRSS Plunkett Cooney LinkedIn Page Plunkett Cooney Twitter Page Plunkett Cooney Facebook Page
- Premises Liability
- Litigation Discovery
- Commercial Real Estate
- Retail Liability
- Open & Obvious
- Open & Obvious Doctrine
- Snow & Ice Claims
- Liquor Liability
- Risk Management
- Residential Liability
- Business Risk Management
- Real Estate
- FDA Regulations
- Food Law
- Foodservice & Hospitality
- Regulatory Law
- Constructive Notice
- Governmental Immunity
- Motor Vehicle Liability
- New Supreme Court Discovery Rule Places Emphasis on Proportionality Over Relevance
- Court Reinforces Principle That Landowners Generally Have no Duty to Prevent Criminal Acts
- Don't Drink and File... a Lawsuit
- Michigan Court of Appeals Affirms Black Ice Remains Open and Obvious
- Phantom Employees Create a 'Question of Fact' for Notice Defense
- Social Media can Derail Defense of Your Premises Liability Case
- The Down and Dirty on Manufacturing Clean Foods, Using Clean Labeling
- Heads up! Baseball, Hotdogs and… Personal Risk at the Ball Park?
- Court Reluctantly Confirms Open and Obvious Doctrine in Ordinary Negligence Claims Involving Snow and Ice
- Low Light and Black Ice Does Not Avoid Open and Obvious