How Surveillance Video Can Help Win Your Michigan Personal Injury Case
Personal injury cases usually come down to one key question: What really happened? The injured person might remember things one way, while others involved, like a driver, property owner, or insurance company, may have a different story. Witnesses can disagree, and memories fade over time. Surveillance video can help clear up these disputes by showing exactly what took place. That’s why, when we handle a Michigan personal injury case, finding and saving any available video is often one of our top priorities.
There might be video evidence even if no one at the scene knew a camera was recording. Many places, like stores, apartment buildings, parking garages, gas stations, homes, construction sites, offices, buses, and nearby businesses, often have cameras pointed at the area where an injury happened. Dash cameras and doorbell cameras are also common sources of footage. The main challenge is finding this video before it gets erased or recorded over.
Surveillance Video Can Establish How An Accident Happened
A video recording can provide evidence that would otherwise depend entirely on competing testimony. In a car accident case, footage may show which driver entered an intersection first, whether someone ran a red light, how fast vehicles appeared to be traveling, or whether a driver changed lanes without enough clearance.
Video is just as important in cases involving pedestrians, bicycles, motorcycles, or unsafe property conditions. For example, a parking lot camera might capture a driver backing into a pedestrian. Store cameras could show how long a spill was on the floor before someone slipped. Footage from a construction site might reveal debris falling into a walkway.
We never assume a police report tells the whole story. If there is video, we compare it with witness statements, physical evidence, vehicle damage, medical records, and other details to get a clearer understanding of what happened.
Video Can Help Defeat Comparative Fault Arguments
Michigan’s comparative fault law makes liability evidence particularly important.
Under MCL 600.2959, damages in a personal injury case can be reduced according to the injured person’s percentage of comparative fault. If that person’s fault is greater than the combined fault of the other responsible persons, non-economic damages may be barred, although economic damages are reduced according to the percentage of fault.
That gives defendants and insurance companies a strong financial reason to shift blame.
Suppose a driver strikes a pedestrian in a parking lot but later claims the pedestrian suddenly stepped behind the vehicle. Surveillance footage showing that the pedestrian had been visible for several seconds before impact could substantially weaken that argument.
The same principle applies to intersection collisions, bicycle crashes, motorcycle accidents, and premises liability cases. Video can sometimes establish not only what happened but also what did not happen.
Surveillance Footage May Help Establish The Severity Of The Impact
Video does more than establish fault. It may also demonstrate the force and circumstances of an accident.
An insurance company may characterize a collision as a minor impact because the vehicles did not sustain dramatic exterior damage. A nearby camera could show that the injured person’s vehicle was violently pushed forward or spun after being struck.
Likewise, footage of a pedestrian being thrown onto pavement, a bicyclist being knocked from a bicycle, or a shopper being struck by falling merchandise may help demonstrate the seriousness of the event.
Video does not replace medical evidence. The nature and extent of an injury must still be supported through medical records, diagnostic testing, physician opinions, and other evidence. However, the recording can provide important context when an insurer argues that the mechanism of injury could not have caused the medical condition being claimed.
Video Is Particularly Important In Michigan Car Accident Injury Claims
Michigan motor vehicle injury cases involve additional legal requirements.
Under MCL 500.3135, a person seeking non-economic damages from an at-fault driver generally must establish death, permanent serious disfigurement, or a serious impairment of body function. The statute defines serious impairment through factors involving objectively manifested impairment and the effect on the person’s general ability to lead a normal life.
Surveillance footage usually will not establish that medical threshold by itself. It can, however, help prove the underlying collision and rebut allegations that the injured driver caused the crash.
After liability is established, medical evidence and evidence showing how the injury changed the person’s normal life become central to the claim.
Where We Look For Video After An Injury
Potential footage is not limited to cameras located directly at the accident scene. We often consider whether surrounding properties may have captured the event from another angle.
Possible sources include retail stores, restaurants, gas stations, parking facilities, apartment buildings, hotels, municipal cameras, private residences, commercial vehicles, rideshare vehicles, delivery vehicles, and construction projects.
A camera several buildings away may still capture traffic movement, the approach of a vehicle, or the moments immediately before and after an accident.
That is why a careful investigation considers the entire surrounding area instead of simply asking whether the property where the injury occurred had a camera.
Why Surveillance Evidence Must Be Preserved Quickly
One of the biggest problems with video evidence is that it may not exist for long.
Many digital surveillance systems operate on continuous recording cycles. Once storage capacity is reached, newer recordings may automatically overwrite older footage. Some businesses retain video for only a short period unless they have a reason to preserve it.
We therefore consider sending preservation notices as soon as we identify a possible source of video. A preservation notice informs the person or business controlling potentially relevant evidence that litigation may arise and that relevant material should be retained.
Waiting several weeks to begin searching for video can mean discovering that footage once existed but has already been erased.
Surveillance Video Must Be Properly Authenticated
Finding a recording does not automatically mean it can simply be played for a Michigan jury.
Under Michigan Rule of Evidence 901, evidence must be authenticated before it is admitted. The party offering the evidence must provide enough information to support a finding that the recording is what that party claims it to be.
Depending on the circumstances, authentication may involve testimony from someone familiar with the scene, evidence concerning the recording system, identifying features shown in the footage, timestamps, or other information establishing reliability.
Video evidence must also satisfy Michigan’s general evidentiary requirements concerning relevance. MRE 401, MRE 402, and MRE 403 govern whether evidence is relevant and whether otherwise relevant evidence should be excluded because certain risks substantially outweigh its probative value.
Preserving the original recording and documenting where it came from can therefore be important if its authenticity is later challenged.
Surveillance Footage Can Change Settlement Negotiations
Strong video evidence can dramatically alter the way an insurance company evaluates a claim.
Without footage, an insurer may believe it can create uncertainty about fault. When a recording clearly contradicts its insured’s account, that uncertainty may disappear.
A video showing a driver running a red light, failing to yield to a pedestrian, or striking a stopped vehicle can make liability considerably harder to dispute. In premises cases, footage showing employees repeatedly walking past a dangerous condition may support arguments concerning notice.
We still evaluate the entire case because liability is only one part of a personal injury claim. Medical causation, damages, insurance coverage, comparative fault, and future losses must also be established. But persuasive video evidence can remove one of the insurance company’s strongest defenses.
Surveillance Video Can Also Hurt An Injury Claim
Video evidence works both ways.
Defendants and insurance companies may obtain recordings that they believe undermine an injured person’s account. Footage could be used to dispute how an accident happened or to challenge claimed physical limitations.
For that reason, accuracy matters. We want our clients’ descriptions of their injuries and restrictions to match the medical evidence and the realities of their daily lives. Personal injury cases are strongest when the evidence tells a consistent story.
We evaluate helpful and potentially harmful footage rather than assuming that every recording automatically benefits the injured party.
Michigan’s Filing Deadline Makes Early Investigation Important
Evidence preservation should begin well before the statute of limitations approaches.
Under MCL 600.5805, most Michigan actions seeking damages for personal injury generally must be filed within three years after the injury. Different deadlines or procedural requirements may apply to particular claims or defendants.
The practical deadline for preserving surveillance footage is usually much shorter. A lawsuit may legally be filed months or years later, while a crucial recording could disappear within days or weeks.
That difference is one reason we believe accident investigations should begin promptly.
FAQs About Surveillance Video In Michigan Personal Injury Cases
How Do We Find Out Whether A Camera Recorded The Accident?
We examine the accident location and surrounding properties to identify possible cameras. Depending on the case, we may investigate nearby businesses, residences, parking facilities, traffic cameras, dash cameras, doorbell cameras, construction sites, buses, or commercial vehicles. Sometimes a camera that appears unrelated to the accident provides the clearest view. The sooner this work begins, the greater the chance that the recording still exists.
Can A Business Refuse To Give Us Its Surveillance Video?
A private business may not voluntarily turn footage over merely because an injured person asks for it. Depending on the circumstances and stage of litigation, obtaining the recording may require formal legal procedures. What matters initially is identifying the footage and taking appropriate action to seek its preservation. Once litigation begins, discovery procedures may provide additional tools for requesting relevant evidence.
Can Surveillance Video Prove The Other Driver Was At Fault?
It can provide powerful evidence of fault, although we evaluate it together with the rest of the evidence. A recording may show a red-light violation, unsafe lane change, failure to yield, excessive speed, distracted behavior, or the sequence of events immediately before a collision. This can become especially valuable when an insurer attempts to assign comparative fault under MCL 600.2959.
What If The Surveillance Video Has Already Been Deleted?
The loss of a recording does not necessarily end the case. We may still use photographs, witness testimony, police reports, vehicle data, medical evidence, crash reconstruction, electronic records, and other sources to establish liability. We also investigate when the footage was destroyed and whether anyone had previously requested its preservation. The legal significance of destroyed evidence depends on the particular circumstances.
Can Cell Phone Or Dash Camera Video Be Used In A Michigan Injury Case?
Potentially, yes. Dash camera footage, mobile phone recordings, and other digital video can become valuable evidence if relevant and properly authenticated. Under MRE 901, a foundation generally must be established showing that the recording is what it is claimed to be. Preserving the original digital file may also help establish authenticity and avoid disputes about editing or alteration.
Why Should We Look For Video Even When The Police Say The Other Person Was At Fault?
A police report can be important evidence, but insurance companies and defendants may still contest liability. Video provides an independent source of information that may confirm witness accounts and show the accident itself. We prefer to preserve as many reliable forms of evidence as possible rather than depend on a single report.
Talk To Ravid & Associates, P.C. About Preserving Video Evidence After A Michigan Accident
Surveillance footage can disappear long before an injured person realizes how important it could have been. We investigate potential sources of video, preserve available evidence, analyze liability, and respond when insurance companies attempt to shift blame onto our clients. Whether the injury resulted from a car crash, pedestrian accident, bicycle collision, dangerous property condition, falling object, or another preventable incident, early evidence preservation can make a meaningful difference.
If you were injured because of another person’s negligence, call our Detroit personal injury lawyers at Ravid & Associates, P.C. today by calling (248) 948-9696 to receive your free consultation. We represent injured people in Detroit and throughout the entire state of Michigan from our office locations in Southfield, Michigan. If surveillance footage may exist, we can investigate potential sources, work to preserve important evidence, and pursue the compensation available under Michigan law.
