Can Accident Videos Be Used in Civil Cases?

Can Accident Videos Be Used in Civil Cases?

A video of a vehicle accident can be powerful evidence in a personal injury case. The number of cameras that surround us increases every day. On any given roadway, intersection or parking lot there may be multiple surveillance cameras. After an accident, locating available videotape evidence can mean the difference between a settlement and a much larger one.

Typically, lawyers litigating accident cases must rely on;

  • Statements by the drivers and witnesses,
  • Physical evidence such as damage to the vehicles and skid marks, and
  • An investigation by an accident reconstruction expert who then offers an opinion as to how the accident happened.

One video of an accident can overcome a witness’ inaccurate memory or another driver’s spin of the events. It can also save injured plaintiffs a substantial amount of money paid to experts to recreate the accident through the physical evidence and computer modeling.

Videotape evidence of an accident is fairly easy to have admitted at trial. In fact, it is much easier than having an expert’s computer created model or demonstration admitted and much more difficult for the defense to attack. The images in the video are often self-authenticating. The injured plaintiff can identify himself, his vehicle, the scene. . . even if he isn’t the one who took the video. As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. And videos are worth considerably more.

Admission of video evidence is not guaranteed. If the video is of poor quality or an argument is made that the video was tampered with, additional steps may be necessary to use the video at trial.

  • The person responsible for the video surveillance system could be called to testify about the camera, where it was pointed, how images were recorded, how the images were stored, and the reliability of the images.
  • An expert may be employed to improve the quality or restore damaged video or extract information from a video such as object locations to create a computer model.

While an accident video is just one tool in the legal toolbox that an attorney can use to prove a plaintiff’s negligence case against another driver, it is a powerful one and often leads to a pretrial settlement. An attorney should be thinking of possible sources of videotape evidence from the very first client meeting.

If you or a family member has been injured in an accident, contact Scott Fegley at the Fegley Law Firm, (215) 493-8287 or by email at scott@fegleylaw.com. Mr. Fegley has 30 years of accident litigation experience. We Give You Peace of Mind.

Tied For First In “Best of Bucks”! – Keep Voting!

The “Best of Bucks” contest doesn’t measure an attorney’s skill, but it is an opportunity for some visibility which, for a sole practitioner, is often hard to come by.  As of last Friday, February 23rd, I was tied for first place in the voting with an attorney from a large Bucks County firm.  The last day for online voting is March 3rd.  It would be nice to win, and I am hitting the social media space up til the last minute, but I am already so very pleased to have so many people take the time to vote for me.  I aspire to provide a level of professional service above your expectations.

Thank you!

More

**Voters will receive an immediate automatic email confirmation notification
bucks.happeningmag.com

Employer Not Responsible For Employee Data Safekeeping

You start your job and give your employer all your personal information: your home address, social security number, perhaps even confidential medical and financial data. Did you know your employer has no duty to keep your confidential information safe from hackers? In a recent 2 – 1 vote, a three-judge panel of the Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled that employers cannot be held responsible for a data breach of employee information even if the employer was not utilizing current best practices to prevent a breach.

In the case of Dittman v. University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, decided January 12, 2017, the names, addresses, birthdates, salaries, social security numbers and other valuable data of 62,000 employees were stolen from University computers. The breach resulted in as many as 788 employees falling victim to tax fraud and identity theft. Yet, the court’s majority concluded that since data breaches are widespread and cannot be prevented entirely, it should not create a rule that would force employers to spend significant sums on technology when data breaches remain an unavoidable hazard.

 

The court did not evaluate the technology UPMC had in place, its cost, or the cost of more expensive measures that might have prevented the breach. In a stinging dissent, Judge Musmanno chided the majority for failing to even allow the plaintiffs the opportunity to demonstrate the University was aware of the threat of cyberattacks and did not act reasonably within budgetary constraints to safeguard employee information.  The Dittman decision has far-reaching implications.  To the delight of hackers, it may encourage some employers to spend less on data security, or at least on the security of data that doesn’t affect the employer’s bottom line if it is compromised. Look for this one to go up to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. In the meantime, employees might want to spend a little themselves on LifeLock or similar services to protect their confidential information.

Is Driving More Dangerous On New Year’s Eve?

Driving is more dangerous on any day on the calendar that increases the number of vehicles on America’s roadways as well as the number of drivers who still get behind the wheel while under the influence of intoxicating substances. Nevertheless, it may come as a surprise that New Year’s Day is statistically not the most hazardous driving day of the year. That dubious distinction belongs to July 4th.

In a study conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety analyzing traffic fatalities from 1986 through 2002, the researchers found that New Year’s Eve was the fourth most hazardous driving day of the year with an average of 142 deaths. The top three were July 4th, (161), July 3rd (149), and December 23rd (145). The study analyzed only fatalities and not the entire number of reported accidents.

Even the fourth most hazardous day of the year for traffic fatalities deserves serious reflection and appropriate caution if venturing out on New Year’s Eve. The following are some common sense precautions to assure you return home safely:

  • Allow yourself plenty of time traveling to and from your destination.
  • Make sure your vehicle’s headlights and taillights are functioning properly so you can see and be seen.
  • Wear your seat belt.
  • Avoid distractions in your vehicle from cellphones and other devices.
  • IF YOU CONSUME ALCOHOL OR OTHER CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES, FOR HEAVEN’S SAKE, DON’T GET BEHIND THE WHEEL. HEAVEN DOESN’T NEED YOU YET.

Although traffic-related deaths may increase around certain holidays, the number of fatalities across the entire 17-year period covered by the study still averaged 117 per day. As Allan Williams of the IIHS cautioned, “While more deaths do occur on some of the holidays, the toll of fatalities is relentless every day, all year long.”

If you or someone you know has been injured in an accident, contact Scott Fegley at the Fegley Law Firm, (215) 493-8287 or by email at scott@fegleylaw.com. We Give You Peace of Mind.

A NON-COMPETE WITHOUT PAY? NONSENSE.

It is well established in Pennsylvania law that a non-competition agreement signed at the beginning of employment is enforceable if it is reasonable in its duration and scope. Yet, employers often attempt to compel employees to sign non-competition agreements after the employment has begun. Perhaps the employer overlooked the document during the hiring process. More likely, the attempt comes much later when the employer suddenly realizes the potential impact to its business if a key employee should leave.

Employers in Pennsylvania are required to offer an employee more than just continued employment to enforce a non-competition agreement signed after employment has begun. In Socko v. Mid Atlantic Systems of CPA, Inc., decided by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in November 2015, the defendant employer foolishly decided the non-competition agreement its salesman, David Socko, signed in 2009 when he was hired wasn’t strong enough. In 2010, it asked him to sign a far more restrictive agreement. The agreement specifically noted that it superseded all prior agreements. Mid Atlantic did not extend Mr. Socko any additional benefit for signing the agreement, not a raise, not a bonus, not an extra week of vacation. When Mr. Socko left to work for a competitor in 2012, Mid Atlantic attempted to enforce the 2010 agreement.

The Supreme Court held the 2010 agreement was unenforceable because Mid Atlantic did not provide Mr. Socko “consideration,” a valuable benefit, in exchange for signing the agreement. Because non-competition agreements have historically been looked upon with disfavor in Pennsylvania jurisprudence, the Supreme Court ruled that an employee is entitled to challenge a non-competition agreement for a lack of consideration even if the agreement contains language which states the employee intended to be legally bound by the agreement. Moreover, the language in the 2010 agreement that superseded all prior agreements prevented the employer from relying upon the less restrictive agreement signed at the beginning of the employment in 2009.

What if an employee refuses to sign a non-competition agreement even if the employer offers a valuable benefit in exchange? Unfortunately, in the employment-at -will environment, a refusal to sign a non-competition agreement properly supported by consideration is not legally protected. At least Pennsylvania employees are entitled to be compensated for agreeing to restrictions. In contrast, the New Jersey Supreme Court has held that continued employment itself is sufficient consideration for a non-competition agreement presented after hiring.

 

If you are presented with a non-competition agreement and have questions, call Scott Fegley at the Fegley Law Firm in Yardley, PA, (215) 493-8287 or email him at scott@fegleylaw.com. Mr. Fegley will help you make an informed decision about whether to sign a document that may restrict your ability to work for another employer.