Vehicle Crash Photos

I’m David Holub, an attorney focusing on personal injury law in northwest Indiana.

Welcome to Personal Injury Primer, where we break down the law into simple terms, provide legal tips, and discuss personal injury law topics.

Often times when a case is taken to trial there will be an issue involving the admissibility of vehicle photos taken following a collision.

Usually if little or no vehicle damage is visible in the photos the defense will want the photos admitted into evidence. The plaintiff in such cases will typically want the photos excluded.

Why would the defense want a juror to see a photo that shows very little vehicle damage?

Usually, the defense will seek to admit a photo showing minimal damage in the hope that they can get the jury to draw an inference that the occupant of the car could not have been injured.

In other words, the defense will want to use the photo to argue to the jury that because there was no serious damage to the vehicle the occupant could not have been seriously harmed.

Keep in mind that this conclusion does not follow either logically or scientifically.

We’ve all seen an egg carton where the carton is undamaged but one of the eggs inside is damaged.

One cannot scientifically draw any valid conclusions from a photograph that shows little or no damage to a vehicle upon impact as to the nature and extent of any injuries suffered by the occupants.

Without an expert to link the vehicle damage photo to the forces felt by an occupant at impact, it is generally impermissible for a judge to allow a jury to see a photo that shows little damage on grounds of a lack of relevancy to the question of occupant injuries.

As a threshold matter to admissibility the defense must establish that a photograph is relevant.

Where the sole issue to be tried by the jury is the causation of the nature and extent of a plaintiff’s injuries, photos will not be relevant as photos cannot show whether an occupant was damaged.

However, if the suit is seeking compensation for vehicle damage, then of course the photos will likely be relevant.

The Society of Automotive Engineers has published papers on the subject and made it very clear that vehicle damage and occupant damage are not capable of being causally linked. Still, a juror might be tempted to link vehicle crash damage due to collision to the degree of occupant injury. Which is why a judge likely will exclude the photos from evidence.

Where medical causation is the only issue, then only medical causation evidence is admissible on the subject of occupant injury.

Unless one of the parties offers an expert opinion causally linking the property damage photos to the nature and extent of the injuries the photos will not be admissible.

Further, even if relevant, the photos may be unfairly prejudicial and thus excludable on the issue of unfair prejudice.

The reason is that a jury member, despite being instructed not to do so, may upon seeing the photos want to draw a causal conclusion.

I hope you found this information helpful. If you are a victim of someone’s carelessness, substandard medical care, product defect, work injury, or another personal injury, please call (219) 736-9700 with your questions. You can also learn more about us by visiting our website at DavidHolubLaw.com – while there, make sure you request a copy of our book “Fighting for Truth.”