How Surveillance Footage Can Help or Hurt a Premises Liability Case

Security cameras are everywhere now. In stores, office buildings, apartment complexes, parking lots, and other public spaces. When someone gets hurt on another person’s property, that footage can become some of the most important evidence in the case.

In a slip and fall, trip and fall, or other premises liability claim, the question is usually not just whether an injury happened. The question is whether the property owner failed to fix a dangerous condition or warn people about it. Surveillance video may help show what caused the fall, how long the hazard was there, and whether anyone had a chance to correct it before someone got hurt.

That kind of evidence can make a real difference when an injured person is seeking compensation for medical bills, lost income, and other losses.

Why surveillance footage matters

In a premises liability case, it usually is not enough to show that someone got hurt on another person’s property. You also have to show that the property owner knew, or should have known, about the dangerous condition and failed to deal with it. A photo only shows one moment. A witness may not have seen everything. Surveillance video can show the bigger picture, including when the hazard appeared, who passed by it, and what happened before and after the fall.

Condition of the premises

Footage may reveal a wet floor, debris, poor lighting, or other hazards that contributed to your injury.

How long has the hazard existed

Timestamps can establish whether a spill or obstruction was present for minutes, hours, or longer prior to the accident.

Whether employees were aware

Recordings may show staff members walking past a hazard without addressing it or posting warning signs.

Circumstances of your fall

Video can confirm your account of how the accident occurred and counter any claims that you were careless.

How can footage support your claim

Video can be powerful when it shows a danger the property owner failed to address. For example, footage from a grocery store may show a spill sitting in an aisle for 20 minutes before someone falls. That matters because it helps show the store had time to find the spill, clean it up, or at least warn customers.

This kind of footage can also make it harder for an insurance company to dispute what happened. If the store claims the spill had just happened, or if there is a question about whether the injured person was paying attention, the video may help clear that up. It can also support what witnesses said and confirm details the injured person may not remember clearly after the fall.

Additionally, surveillance footage can also help establish a clear timeline of events. The ability to refer to a timeline is critical when determining how long a hazardous condition existed and whether a reasonable response time was exceeded.

When footage can hurt your case

Surveillance footage doesn’t always help the injured person. Defense attorneys may use the recordings to argue that you were at fault, whether partly or fully.

Visible warning signs

Video showing a wet floor sign or a caution cone near the hazard may support the property owner. They could argue they took reasonable steps to avoid the risk of an accident and that if you were paying attention, you should have avoided any injuries.

The hazard was obvious

Footage showing a clearly visible obstruction may support an argument that you should have avoided it. For instance, let’s say there was a large pot hole in a parking lot that wasn’t under water or covered by debris, and that it was light out and easy to see. Defense attorneys may argue that you would have avoided it if you were being reasonably cautious.

You were distracted

Video might show you looking at your phone, carrying items that blocked your view, or otherwise not paying attention to where you were walking.

The spill was recent

If security camera footage shows a hazard appeared only moments before your fall, the property owner could (and is likely to) claim they didn’t have a fair opportunity to fix the problem.

Technical limitations and missing footage

Despite advances in technology, not all surveillance systems make clear recordings. Poor resolution, bad lighting, or old equipment can make it hard to see what happened. Some cameras record at such low frame rates that they might miss important moments. System malfunctions or overwritten files can also cause gaps and, consequently, raise questions about whether all relevant evidence has been preserved.

Camera placement also matters. For example, a camera aimed at the cash register may not show what happens in nearby aisles.

Sometimes, cameras that look like they’re working aren’t actually recording, or the recordings may be damaged. These technical problems don’t mean your claim will fail, but they show why other evidence, like witness statements, photos, and incident reports, is still important.

Time is of the essence when preserving footage

Many surveillance systems automatically erase recordings every 24 to 72 hours. If you don’t act quickly to obtain relevant recordings, vital evidence could be lost for good. This is why it’s important to contact a premises liability lawyer as soon as possible.

Under Massachusetts law, property owners have a duty to keep relevant evidence once they know or should know that a lawsuit is likely to be filed. If footage is destroyed after a request to save it, the property owner could face legal sanctions, including a jury instruction that allows the jury to infer the missing evidence would have hurt the defense.

One of the first things an attorney may do after a premises liability accident is send a spoliation letter to the property owner. This formal notice tells them to keep all surveillance footage and other significant evidence.

Other sources of video evidence

Besides the property owner’s surveillance system, other video sources might have important evidence.

• Bystanders could have recorded the incident on their phones.
• Nearby businesses might have outside cameras that caught what happened.
• If emergency responders were there, police body-camera or dash-cam footage might also help.

A premises liability lawyer knows where to find this evidence and, most importantly, how to obtain it.

Consult a Massachusetts premises liability lawyer

While surveillance footage can play a key role in a premises liability case, getting and understanding this evidence takes quick action and legal know-how. Whether the footage helps or hurts your claim depends on what it shows and how well it’s used.

If you were hurt in a slip and fall or another premises liability accident in Massachusetts, the team at The Law Offices of Gerald J. Noonan may be able to assist in preserving evidence and building a strong case. Schedule a consultation to speak with an experienced premises liability lawyer about your accident at no cost.