The Crucial Influence of Technology: How it Transforms Traffic Accident Litigation

Of the roughly two million traffic accidents in 2021, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety / Highway Loss Data Institute reports 39,508 fatal accidents resulted in 42,939 deaths. Making in-person notifications to loved ones was one of the most challenging aspects of my law enforcement career. Families expect and deserve a thorough investigation necessary to answer every question surrounding the crash. These standards should also apply to accidents involving substantial property damage or injury. Some police agencies have the resources for advanced traffic accident reconstruction, and some do not.

Traffic accident reconstruction is a highly specialized field, generally conducted by well-trained individuals. Traffic accident reconstructionists rely on roadway evidence, vehicle damage, witness and operator statements, and principles of physics to arrive at appropriate conclusions. Under the best circumstances, certain assumptions and evidence interpretations must be made to reach such conclusions. The most skilled reconstructionists appreciate technology’s role in the process.

Event Data Recorders have revolutionized accident investigation by providing vast data points, including braking, steering maneuvers, acceleration, speed, unbuckled occupants, and the ability to detect/confirm occupants in a reported loss. Many older vehicles remain on the road today and are not equipped with EDRs. However, those vehicles typically contain cell phones acting as pseudo-EDRs in many circumstances. Cell phones can reveal the speed of the device inside moving vehicles, whether the driver was accessing the device to display apps, engage in texting activity, open a web browser, or reveal other evidence of distracted driving. When both technologies are combined with accident reconstruction, when appropriate, accident investigations are more thorough and answer more questions.

A recent traffic accident investigation by Lemieux & Associates involved an older vehicle with no EDR installed. The police traffic accident reconstructionist opined that an involved driver was likely traveling below the posted speed limit. Reviewing an extraction report of the driver's cell phone, L&A examined the database that recorded the device's GPS locations and speed, which confirmed the fact that the driver was traveling between 7 and 11 miles per hour above the posted speed limit just before impact. Another database revealed that the driver was not accessing the phone screen just before or at the time of the collision. These new facts shed light on the overall investigation and provided needed answers.

Insurers and legal counsel should remember that cellular evidence must be acquired soon after a traffic crash. Databases only retain such evidence for a limited timeframe, and spoilation can occur by a user with little technical ability. If a client is not at fault for a crash, consider acquiring cellular evidence to prevent attempts to cloud the matter with supposition or by an inferior investigation.

Rich McKeon retired after a 28-year career with the Glastonbury, CT, Police Department. During his career, Rich worked as a Traffic Accident Reconstructionist and later supervised a regional Digital Crimes Unit as a Certified Computer Examiner awarded by the International Society of Forensic Computer Examiners.