Is Photographic Evidence a Slam Dunk in Personal Injury Cases?

Based purely on numbers, it is easier for plaintiffs to prevail in personal injury lawsuits than it is for prosecutors to persuade the jury to convict a defendant at a criminal trial. First, trials in personal injury cases do not always have juries, and if they do, there are usually fewer than twelve jurors, whereas in a criminal trial, 12 jurors must vote unanimously to convict the defendant, or else the trial will not result in a conviction. An equally important difference is that, in order for a juror to vote to convict a defendant at a criminal trial, he or she may be sure, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the evidence clearly connects the defendant to all elements of the definition of the criminal charge. Meanwhile, in a personal injury trial in civil court, the plaintiff must only persuade the judge, or the jury if there is one, that there is a preponderance of the evidence that all the plaintiff’s claims are true. A preponderance of the evidence only means that the chances that the plaintiff’s claims are correct is greater than 50 percent. Persuading a judge that you are more likely interpreting events correctly than incorrectly sounds easy at first, but there are two sides to every story. Even apparently definitive pieces of evidence, such as photographs, can have more than one plausible interpretation. For help presenting the strongest possible case about the causes of your accidental injuries after photographing the scene of the accident, contact a Fort Lauderdale premises liability lawyer.

Defendant Successfully Argues That Google Maps Image Does Not Prove That the Premises Were Unsafe at the Time of the Accident

A woman sued the city of Miami for premises liability after she got injured when she tripped and fell on an uneven patch of asphalt on a public sidewalk. Most premises liability claims, including those with local governments as defendants, settle before going to court, but in her case, the city refused to admit to its negligence.

One of the claims that a plaintiff must prove in a premises liability lawsuit is that the premises were in unsafe condition at the time of the accident, and the defendant should reasonably have been aware of the danger and either fixed it or made the dangerous area inaccessible to visitors. At her trial, she presented a photograph of the area, which she found on Google Earth. The defendant argued at the trial that the Google Earth photograph was from 2007, three years before the accident, so it did not prove that the premises were unsafe when she got injured. The court ruled in favor of the injured party, but the city of Miami appealed the ruling. The appeals court reversed the trial court’s ruling and ruled in favor of the defendant.

Set Up a Consultation Today

A personal injury lawyer can help you get justice after a slip and fall accident on a public sidewalk.  Contact Boone & Davis in Fort Lauderdale, Florida or call 954-566-9919 to explore your potential recovery options today.

Source:

law.justia.com/cases/florida/third-district-court-of-appeal/2019/3d18-2369.html