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.
Add a comment
SubscribeRSS Plunkett Cooney LinkedIn Page Plunkett Cooney Twitter Page Plunkett Cooney Facebook Page
- Premises Liability
- Retail Liability
- Litigation Discovery
- General Liability
- Residential Liability
- Civil Litigation
- Commercial Real Estate
- Open & Obvious Doctrine
- Snow & Ice Claims
- Independent Medical Examinations (IME)
- Contractor Liability
- Property Liability
- Motor Vehicle Liability
- Liquor Liability
- Open & Obvious
- Risk Management
- Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
- Commercial Liability
- Business Risk Management
- Auto Liability
- Judicial Estoppel
- No Fault Liability
- Trucking Liability
- Wrongful Death
- Real Estate
- FDA Regulations
- Food Law
- Foodservice & Hospitality
- Regulatory Law
- Constructive Notice
- Governmental Immunity
- Indiana Supreme Court Rules Store Managers Cannot be Held Negligent for Accidents in Which They Played no Part
- Open and Obvious Doctrine Remains Alive, but for How Long?
- Court Ruling Bans Cameras, Allows Observers for Independent Medical Exams
- Appellate Court ‘Loans’ Temporary Possessory Rights to Contractor, Allowing it to Assert Premises Liability Defenses
- Appellate Court Holds Sporting Event Rules Violations Not Necessarily Reckless Misconduct
- Warehouse Clubs Should Consider Arbitration for Member Disputes
- Truck Driver’s Bodily Injury Claim Barred by his Bankruptcy Case
- Intoxication Bars College Student’s Estate from Wrongful Death Action
- New Supreme Court Discovery Rule Places Emphasis on Proportionality Over Relevance
- Court Reinforces Principle That Landowners Generally Have no Duty to Prevent Criminal Acts