Does a victim require other evidence to prove that a driver hit and ran or can the footage from a government-owned CCTV be enough?

You may be able solve a hit and run accident if you have a street CCTV camera owned by the government. Is CCTV evidence enough to prove hit-and run in every case? Continue reading to find out what some lawyers have to say.

It may be enough in some cases

In a hit and run investigation, CCTV footage can be a powerful type of evidence. It may suffice in some cases, particularly if it clearly shows the events that occurred during the accident. The footage can only be admitted in court if both authenticity and relevance are met. These cameras are owned by the government, so they most likely meet these requirements.

If there are objections, you will need to provide more evidence. Among the objections are undue bias, hearsay and lack of evidence.

Unfair prejudice occurs when an opposing lawyer can claim that the evidence does not represent the subject in a fair and reasonable way. Hearingsay is used when there are no witnesses to cross-examine to prove the events in the video footage actually happened.

If the video is a copy, the attorney can claim that the original CCTV footage is better than what you have. Lack of foundation is when certain factors are at play in the litigation-visibility, time of day, or weather. The attorney may question the similarity of the evidence to the event in question.

You’ll need to gather more evidence if you have these objections. You’ll need to gather evidence in hit-and-run situations, including photos, videos, skidmarks from the road and eyewitness testimony. Other documents include medical bills and records, police reports, eyewitnesses, first responders, and police reports.

It is possible that you do not need to have all these items in order to prove your case if the accident was a hit and run. Contacting a personal injury lawyer as soon as possible is the best option, as they can help you get a claim.

The best use of this evidence is when combined with other evidence

Video evidence can be very powerful in proving an accident, but may not be sufficient on its own. The strength of the evidence will be reduced if it is a poor-quality video or filmed from an angle which does not clearly show what occurred. The best footage will clearly show the vehicle of the hit-and run driver and the entire accident.

Even if video evidence is convincing, it is usually just one piece of evidence in a case. In some cases, video evidence can be subjectively interpreted and challenged by the opposing party.

Combining video with other evidence can prove an argument more effectively. The police report, for example, is an official record of the incident and includes the observations made by the officer who responded. Medical records of the victim can be used to establish their extent of injuries and costs. The victim’s medical records can be crucial in proving fault and supporting the claim if they report the accident to their insurer.