Video Evidence in Auto Accident Cases and Why Timing Matters
Video evidence has become one of the most important forms of proof in modern auto accident cases. Cameras are now common on roadways, in vehicles, and on surrounding properties, and they often capture events that eyewitnesses remember imperfectly or not at all. When video exists, it can clarify how a collision occurred, who was at fault, and whether early statements accurately reflect what happened.
At the same time, video evidence is temporary. Many recordings are automatically deleted within days or weeks unless steps are taken to preserve them.
Where Video Evidence May Exist
Auto accidents may be captured from many different sources, including:
Police vehicle dash cameras
Dash cameras in rideshare vehicles such as Uber or Lyft
Cameras on buses, trains, and other public transportation
Traffic and red-light cameras operated by municipalities
Surveillance cameras at nearby businesses
Residential security systems and doorbell cameras
Cameras mounted inside commercial or fleet vehicles
In many cases, multiple recordings may exist from different angles, each providing a partial view of the same event.
The Importance of Early Preservation
Most video systems automatically overwrite old footage after a short period of time. Some systems retain recordings for only a few days. Others retain footage for weeks, depending on storage capacity and internal policies.
Because of this, timing is critical. Once video is overwritten, it is often lost permanently. Early identification of potential video sources and prompt action to preserve recordings can make the difference between having objective evidence and relying solely on testimony.
Preservation Requests and Government-Owned Video
When video is controlled by a government entity, such as a police department or a municipal traffic system, formal written requests are often required to preserve footage. These requests notify the agency that the video may be relevant to a legal claim and should not be destroyed.
Failure to make a timely request can result in footage being erased under routine retention policies, even when the video would have been highly relevant.
Video Held by Defendants and Third Parties
When video is held by a defendant, such as a trucking company or rideshare operator, preservation letters are used to place the party on notice that the footage must be retained. Once a party has notice that evidence may be relevant to litigation, they may have a legal obligation to preserve it.
Video held by third parties presents additional challenges. Businesses and private property owners are generally not required to preserve footage unless legal action is initiated. In many cases, a subpoena issued after a lawsuit is filed is the only way to compel a third party to produce or preserve video evidence.
Consequences of Failing to Preserve Video
If a party had notice that video evidence should be preserved and failed to do so, courts may allow the jury to consider that failure when evaluating the case. In some circumstances, a jury may be instructed that it can infer the missing evidence would have been unfavorable to the party who failed to preserve it.
Because of this, preservation issues can affect a case even when the video itself no longer exists.
Why These Issues Matter
Video evidence often provides clarity that no witness can offer. But its value depends on recognizing where it may exist and acting before it disappears. In many cases, the most important work involving video evidence happens long before a case ever reaches a courtroom.
Speak With an Attorney
If you have questions about how video evidence may affect an auto accident case, you will speak directly with the attorney handling the matter.