If you filed a car accident lawsuit as recently as a decade ago, your case likely hinged on two factors: the police report and witness testimony. Each of these is imperfect. The officer arrives on scene after the accident happened, and sometimes the scene doesn’t accurately reflect how the accident took place. Witnesses can disagree or make mistakes, and memories become blurred over time.
And there were times when it became the proverbial “he said/she said”... the at-fault driver swears he had the green light, the other driver swears otherwise. At that point, it’s essentially a coin toss to see who the jury thinks is more credible.
While every lawsuit has a winner and a loser, a lot of it was down to chance. The lawsuit, itself, was a gamble. A jury proceeding will always be a bit of a gamble—juries can be unpredictable, and it can be impossible to know how they will perceive the evidence. However, digital evidence available today can remove a lot of the guesswork and interpretation from a typical court proceeding.
Today, an astonishing amount of digital evidence is available for the typical car accident. Your own vehicle is almost certainly recording data about your speed, braking, and whether your seatbelt was engaged. A neighbor’s Ring doorbell might have caught the whole incident on video. Your phone’s GPS logged exactly where you were and how fast you were moving. Somewhere overhead, it’s possible that a traffic camera or business’ security system was watching, too.
For parties to a car accident lawsuit and their lawyers, this is both a tremendous opportunity and a minefield.
We’ll take a deep dive into how black box data, surveillance footage, and GPS records are reshaping personal injury litigation.
What does your car know about you?
If your car is from the model year 2013 or later, there’s a 96% chance it has an Event Data Recorder (EDR), or a “black box.” That’s according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), which says most 2013 and later passenger cars and light-duty vehicles are equipped with this device. According to industry estimates and safety organizations, approximately 95 to 98 percent of new passenger vehicles sold in the U.S. in recent years contain an EDR.
What does an EDR record?
The specific data captured by an EDR depends on the make, model, and year of the vehicle. Typically, they record vehicle speed immediately before and at the time of impact, whether brakes were applied and the brake input magnitude, and other sensor data. Some vehicle EDR devices can capture steering angle, throttle position, seatbelt status, and airbag deployment timing.
An EDR captures a short, focused record. This is typically a compact collection of sensor values that cover a few seconds before and after an event.
In late 2024, NHTSA established a rule that expands EDR requirements. Under the new rule, data capture must specify a 20-second recording duration and a 10Hz sample rate. This is a significant increase from earlier standards, and it means future vehicles will preserve even more granular snapshots of the moments surrounding a crash.
How does enhanced EDR affect litigation?
Because the data produced by an EDR is quantitative and objective, it’s hard for defense counsel to rebut. For instance, a driver might say she was driving the speed limit, but the EDR shows she was traveling 78 mph in a 55 mph zone. That’s a pretty big discrepancy, and it can be enough to indicate negligence.
EDR data is objective. It records sensor output, rather than human memory. This makes it almost indisputable in court.
Dashcams as an “objective eyewitness”
The use of dashcams has increased dramatically in the U.S., and footage is now routinely used in courtroom proceedings and insurance negotiations. It’s not just dashcams, though—doorbell cameras in residential neighborhoods, retailers with constant camera coverage, people with smartphones that record high-definition video, and other ubiquitous recording can make or break a legal case.
Dashcam footage is generally admissible in court if it meets basic evidentiary requirements.
For example, under California law, dashcam footage must meet certain criteria in order to be admissible:
- It is relevant to the issues in the case
- It is authentic and hasn’t been altered
- A proper foundation can be laid through testimony
This is similar in most other states: The video must be relevant, genuine, and preserved within an intact chain of custody.
Power of dashcam evidence: pros and cons for a plaintiff
| Pros | Cons |
|---|---|
| Objectivity. It can show the speed of each vehicle, abrupt lane changes, distracted driving, traffic violations, and the immediate aftermath of a collision. | If the footage shows that an injured victim somehow contributed to the accident, possibly by speeding or swerving just before the accident, it could prove reckless driving or contributory negligence, even if the video doesn’t disprove it. |
| In a case where the liable party attempts to deny fault or shift blame, a dashcam recording can cut through the argument and offer hard evidence. | Once the footage exists, both sides can potentially have access through discovery. |
The surveillance web
As mentioned previously, it’s not just about dashcams. Many homeowners use security cameras or smart doorbells that record video, and if an accident happens near a residential property, this footage might help support a claim. Business security cameras, gas station surveillance systems, and municipal traffic cameras can also capture crucial angles.
This type of video is particularly valuable because it often captures a perspective that a forward-facing dashcam cannot. This might include overhead angles, side impacts, or the broader scene that shows traffic flow and road conditions. Security cameras capture angles that a dashcam doesn’t, and this might offer more information about speed and the range of impact.
However, this evidence is perishable. Surveillance systems often automatically delete video footage after a short time, usually within days or weeks. Traffic camera are typically live-stream only; those that record usually overwrite their data within 24 to 72 hours. That means it’s up to the parties and the lawyers to request any relevant video footage immediately after an accident. A business or homeowner might only keep the video if they know there’s relevant information that must be saved.
GPS and smartphone data
Your GPS or smartphone essentially create a digital paper trail, so to speak.
You know that phone in your pocket or handbag? It’s generating evidence right now (though we hope you’re not reading this while driving). Apps like Google Maps and Waze include GPS logs that establish precisely where a driver was and how fast they were traveling at the time of a collision. A driver might insist they’re going the speed limit, but the GPS data could show they were actually 20 mph over. This discrepancy could prove negligence at trial.
Your phone can also reveal whether you were texting or engaging with an app at the moment of impact. In serious injury cases, forensic experts can perform a physical extraction of phone data to determine if the screen was unlocked, or if a specific app was active. This type of digital forensic analysis is increasingly common in distracted driving cases.
Fitness trackers and health apps can also collect valuable data. Location tracking, step counts, and movement patterns from wearable devices can be used to either support or undermine claims about a victim’s injuries and daily activities following an accident.
Is wearable device data hearsay?
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled in Pennsylvania v. Wallace that GPS data collected from electronic monitoring devices are not hearsay. This evidence can speak for itself in court without requiring extensive witness testimony. This ruling—and others like it—opens the door for the use of fleet tracking, smartphone location data, and vehicle telematics as primary evidence.
How can a plaintiff protect their rights?
1. Send a spoliation letter.A spoliation letter is a formal legal demand that requires the other party to preserve all relevant evidence. This puts the other party on notice that a legal matter is pending or anticipated, and that destroying or altering evidence could result in legal consequences.
Since we know many EDRs overwrite data if another triggering event occurs, sometimes very quickly, and that surveillance systems auto-delete, this is very important. Phone data can be wiped, vehicles get repaired, and dashcam SD cards can fill and re-record. Requesting that the data is preserved is crucial—and must happen as soon as possible after a crash.
A spoliation letter should be sent within hours, not days, of a crash. Ideally, a spoliation letter is sent within 24 hours and demands preservation of all GPS tracking data, dashcam footage, and EDR information.
Follow-up steps would include filing a formal discovery request for telematics data and subpoenas of mobile phone records and app data.
If the opposing party ignores the preservation demand and destroys evidence, there are significant consequences. The court could impose sanctions, adverse inference instructions (where the judge tells the jury there is missing evidence that was likely unfavorable to the party who destroyed it), striking pleadings or entering default judgment (ruling in favor of the plaintiff because the defendant failed, treated as an admission of the allegations).
2. Take immediate personal steps. Don’t erase or reset your phone or vehicle systems. Access and download your Google Maps timeline; photograph the scene, your injuries, and any visible damage. Inform your attorney about every device you were using or had with you at the time of the crash.
Pitfalls of digital evidence in the courtroom
- It could go in either party’s favor. The same dashcam footage that proves the at-fault driver ran a red light might also show the plaintiff was not wearing a seatbelt, was talking animatedly on the phone, or was traveling above the speed limit. Any digital evidence you introduce can be scrutinized for details that undermine your claim.
- Technical limitations. Dashcams face forward and don’t usually capture a side-impact crash or what the driver was doing at the time. Low-light conditions, weather, or low-resolution cameras might make it difficult to see details. Wide-angle lenses can distort the apparent distance between objects, and opposing counsel will definitely use these limitations to their advantage.
- Contested authentication. A court will require that digital evidence not be tampered with. There are often sanctions or adverse inference instructions issued when there are selective screenshots submitted without original exports; these often lead to authenticity challenges. It’s crucial to maintain a clear chain of custody, preserve original files with metadata intact, and use hash values to verify integrity.
- Privacy concerns. There are civil liberty and privacy concerns about the implications of data recorders in vehicles. The issue of who owns this data is not completely settled. State laws vary when it comes to ownership and access of EDR data. Typically, this requires either owner consent or a court order. Audio recordings from dashcams also vary from wiretapping statutes in states that require two-party consent.
- Interpretation expertise. Raw EDR data is stored in complex formats that wouldn’t be understood by the average person; they require expert analysis. This highly technical evidence is usually admitted in court alongside expert testimony to explain the data, the download process, and the interpretation. Without a qualified accident reconstruction expert, even powerful data evidence can be misunderstood or dismissed.
What’s next for this type of data?
Vehicles are becoming more connected, more equipped, and more able to share what they observe. Cars are computers on wheels, tracking lane departures, eye movement, and even driver fatigue. Advanced driver assistance systems generate their own data logs. Tesla vehicles, for instance, continuously record from multiple cameras. Autonomous and semi-autonomous vehicles already log extensive sensor and control system data beyond traditional EDR parameters, which will expand the range of evidence available—and will also introduce new legal questions about data ownership and access rights.
For personal injury plaintiffs and their attorneys, the message is clear: Digital evidence is no longer a nice-to-have supplement to witness testimony and police reports. It is increasingly the backbone of modern accident litigation. The attorneys who understand how to identify, preserve, obtain, authenticate, and present this evidence—and who act with urgency in those critical first hours—will be the ones who build the strongest cases.
You're almost certainly being recorded right now, by your own car, by the cars around you, by the cameras on every doorstep and storefront, and by the phone in your cup holder. In the aftermath of a crash, that digital trail will tell a story. The question is whether you and your legal team will control how it's told.
What To Do After a Car Accident If It’s Not Your Fault
Steps to take after a severe car crash or minor fender bender when you’re not to blame