If you have hired a good lawyer, then that member of the legal professional will want to present a solid defense. Lawyers realize that by collecting the proper evidence, their chances for presenting a sound defense become greater. Statistics now show that video surveillance works as a powerful means for obtaining strong evidence.
Those facts highlight the benefits linked to observations conducted with the aid of a camera’s lens. Present day lawyers cannot afford to ignore the discovery of such benefits. Consequently, video surveillance has become a tactic that gets used frequently be defense lawyers.
Who gets targeted by the person with the camera?
The plaintiff should expect to be that particular target. Of course, the targeted person (the plaintiff) will not realize that he or she has been captured by a camera’s lens. That is because the insurance company has paid for covert surveillance.
Why do insurers spend money on such a service?
The insurer pays private investigators to be the company’s eyes and ears. Investigators are not cheap. Still, the information that a private investigator (PI) may be able to gather could help a defense lawyer to influence the members of the jury. Juries tend to believe their eyes more than their ears.
When lawfully collected, the actions captured on a video tape can be used in court. The taped actions of a plaintiff can be used to attack that same plaintiff’s claims. Yet an insurance company enjoys that promising benefit under special circumstances. Those are the times when the PI performs his or her job in legal manner.
How a plaintiff-lawyer team can limit the degree to which an insurer can benefit from use of video surveillance
The plaintiff’s lawyer should warn him or her to refrain from making an exaggerated statement. At the same time, that lawyer for the plaintiff needs to study the footage that has been paid for by the insurance company. Poor quality footage can be disputed.
Admittedly, personal injury lawyer in Sault Ste. Marie comments cannot erase what has already been captured on tape. Still, a good lawyer can introduce a logical reason for the fact that his or her client had been caught performing a specific action. It was an action that, according to the same client, had caused a painful sensation in one or more parts of the body. With a lawyer’s guidance, members of the jury can come to realize that, at some point, a recovering patient must discover the full extent of his or her limitations.
Indeed, if lawyers were to be placed at the bedside of every accident victim that had broken his or her legs, those same victims would not be encouraged to try taking a few steps. As a result, those same patients would find it extremely hard to resume walking. Thus, those accident victims might foil the strategy of the defendant’s lawyer, but any one of them could be confined to a wheelchair for a great length of time.