HeartTLs

iTrader: (5)

How dim witted do you have to be to not have left the micro SD at home because you were uploading stored footage, if that were the case?

Edit: working in the field I'm in I've come to learn that rarely, if ever is every resource at the disposable of law enforcement used even when it's "obvious" or "easily" accessible. Even when they have it in their possession, due to limited resources such evidence occasionally falls through the cracks. Don't get fooled by the movies gentlemen.

Bob Chadwick

Edit: working in the field I'm in I've come to learn that rarely, if ever is every resource at the disposable of law enforcement used even when it's "obvious" or "easily" accessible. Even when they have it in their possession, due to limited resources such evidence occasionally falls through the cracks. Don't get fooled by the movies gentlemen.[/QUOTE]

Plaintiff's attorneys go to seminars on these things. Almost every set of auto interrogatories these days ask for video, date recorders, etc. Trust me, if you took it it will come out.

VanyDotK

iTrader: (6)

Let's get back to the real world though, how often will a traffic collision go to a court setting where these questions will be asked? Probably not very often.

Bob Chadwick

Every day. America is the most litigious society in the world and supports a very large insurance industry which, fortunately keeps me in a job.

VanyDotK

iTrader: (6)

You work in a field where you're involved with these types of things everyday therefore it must happen in the majority of traffic collisions. Okay, gotcha.

Bob Chadwick

I didn't say the majority, but its substantial. There is a reason why America has the largest attorney population in the world, personal injury attorneys advertise all the time on the TV, etc. Got me?

VanyDotK

iTrader: (6)

What are the numbers then? If there are 100 traffic collisions, of the 100 how many go to court where you will be questioned on whether or not you have video?

I'm not here to talk about America's lawyer population, the point I'm trying to make is the majority of traffic collisions you will probably not go to court and face questioning on whether or not you have dashcam video or not.

Bob Chadwick

And I'm not disagreeing with you. NHTSA reported just over 6 million police reported traffic accidents in 2005. According to the US DOJ there were 26,948 tort, contract and real property trials in the US in 2005. That represents 4% of the actual cases filed (almost 700,000) with over half related to auto accidents. So the number of auto accidents resulting in litigation are somewhere north of 6%. I just raised the issue that traffic cam footage can be helpful or not. And the more serious the accident the more likely that video footage, etc. will be an issue.

HeartTLs

iTrader: (5)

Van from my experience the real answer is although an aggressive attorney will use their knowledge and financial resources to obtain information, most often it isn't worth it to them. People typically have small auto coverage, little to no assets and it's not worth the effort to pursue every detail of every case. On a 25/50 policy, if the attorney gets the full policy because the plaintiff gets an extremities surgery, more than likely they're going to exceed the medical coverage limits and dip into that 25k settlement a bit. So here's the break down, a minimum of 1-1.5 years legal "work" for a potential 8.25k and you think the attorney is going to break his back to investigate if whomever erased dash cam footage or conveniently misplaced it? Yea right....

Everyone wants that million dollar case, great injuries, excellent insurance, good liability, and preferably the victim is a young person. Those rarely happen and I'd confidently say only those cases are treated like how the media portrays cop investigations and "The Rainmaker".

Here's an attorney joke so you get with the mindset, "it was a terrible accident, nobody was hurt", lol.... Or how about how a diagnostic test is called "positive" if there are serious injuries, and "negative" if there aren't.

Edit: most importantly remember it's what you can prove, not what you know.

VanyDotK

iTrader: (6)

Thanks for the stats. I will take my chances with my dashcam. If I'm at fault, I will admit fault and I have no problem disclosing my video if legally required to do so. If I'm not at fault and the other party lies, I will have my video ready to prove it.

Bob Chadwick

I hear ya. I was reading the manual on my 2012 last night and saw the reference to the EDR. Big brother is watching. I'm not sure I like it.

HeartTLs

iTrader: (5)

Just thought of another thing I typically encounter/come across, etc, motor vehicle accident takes place in an urban area, there are store front cameras in said area, I've yet to hear of a lawyer or insurance company requesting surveillance footage. Lawyers and insurance companies have been going to court years before video footage was readily available. They have a way of doing things and simply follow the mold. Lets say your law firm happens to be young, hungry, they believe in the potential of a case and want that footage. They're going to have to jump a lot of legal hoops to obtain it if the shop owner doesn't simply hand it over as a courtesy to their investigator. And more than likely since surveillance footage is rarely kept for over 2-3 weeks, sometimes as little as 1 day, by the time you get legal access to said footage, it no longer exists.

yokopup

Hey guys - I have an update for you.

Unfortunately she was totaled. I don't know how close it was to being able to fix it vs totaling it. They gave me a little over 22K for it - which I am happy with. I'm just bummed that I lost her because of someone else's negligence.

On the other side of it, now I get to start looking for a new (to me) car. I'm in no big hurry because I have other cars that I can drive. I'm not sure if I will be getting another TL or not. Well see!

Thanks again for everybody's support. And be sure to get a dash cam!!