Forum Discussion
MEXICOWANDERER
Sep 16, 2013Explorer
Wouldn't that be as compelling as an attorney declaring
"Our insured insists they were not at fault"
(Judge) "Counselor, that, and two dollars will get you a coffee at Starbucks. The court is asking for proof".
(Attorney) "We are absolutely sure our insured was not at fault"
(Judge) "Proof?"
(Attorney) "We have a videocam recording from out insured's vehicle of the accident"
What Does The Judge Say? Non admissible evidence? Because (for example) the speed as shown on the videocam has not be corroborated as being accurate - proven?
An Underwriter sure as shootin' isn't going to declare, "Aw shucks your honor, our insured is as guilty as hell as we need to be slapped with a whopper of a judgement"
That is why I am asking if a dashcam recorded incident has been used as evidence of liability or non liability in a court of law.
"Our insured insists they were not at fault"
(Judge) "Counselor, that, and two dollars will get you a coffee at Starbucks. The court is asking for proof".
(Attorney) "We are absolutely sure our insured was not at fault"
(Judge) "Proof?"
(Attorney) "We have a videocam recording from out insured's vehicle of the accident"
What Does The Judge Say? Non admissible evidence? Because (for example) the speed as shown on the videocam has not be corroborated as being accurate - proven?
An Underwriter sure as shootin' isn't going to declare, "Aw shucks your honor, our insured is as guilty as hell as we need to be slapped with a whopper of a judgement"
That is why I am asking if a dashcam recorded incident has been used as evidence of liability or non liability in a court of law.
About Technical Issues
Having RV issues? Connect with others who have been in your shoes.24,190 PostsLatest Activity: Jan 22, 2025