Six Ways Social Media Activity Can Undermine Your Personal Injury Claim

In a closely watched decision, the Ontario Superior Court's ruling in Mohamud v. Juskey, has redefined the legal landscape, emphasizing the need for comprehensive disclosure of social media content by plaintiff lawyers in their client’s Affidavit of Documents (AOD).

New York County Supreme Court held that the defendant failed to show the plaintiff’s social media postings as discoverable by the court.

A defendant in a Florida court does not meet the basis for earning access to the plaintiff’s private social media contents.

Montana federal court finds evidence from social media that undermines a plaintiff’s injury claim.

Montana court presented with evidence from social media that contradicts a plaintiff’s restricted physical capabilities claims.

Courts can rely on social media posts as evidence against LTD claims if the posts provide evidence contrary to the claimant’s description of the effects of their condition.

New York Court Limits Defendant’s Access to Plaintiff’s Social Media Accounts in Personal Injury Case.

Court rejects social media evidence submitted by defendants in British Columbia personal injury case

Social media evidence was used by the plaintiff’s insurance company to prove she had an active lifestyle in Michigan personal injury case.

After reviewing case law, Louisiana court holds that social media posts are relevant in personal injury case.

In Yousif v. State Farm, the plaintiff was a passenger in a vehicle involved in a motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff submitted a claim for benefits that included household replacement services and attendant care. He further alleged that he was bedridden due to the pain and was unable to perform daily activities.

In Sedie v US, the plaintiff was hit by a postal truck when riding a bicycle. The plaintiff claimed that his injuries limited him from working or pursuing his career and sought damages of $2.5 million. Relying on social media evidence, the court found that the plaintiff, despite his injuries, was exaggerating the extent of his pain.

In Richards v. Hertz, the plaintiff claimed she sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident that impaired her ability to play sports. After finding a publicly shared photo on Facebook of the plaintiff skiing after the accident, the defendants sought to have the social media postings admitted as evidence.

In Raikou v. Spencer, social media evidence was used to undermine the plaintiff's credibility to bolster the claim that the plaintiff tended to exaggerate the extent of her injuries. The plaintiff claimed damages for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. As a result of the ongoing pain, she claimed that she was unable to participate in many of the activities she did prior to the accident.

In Davenport v. State Farm, the court in Florida allowed plaintiff’s social media photos as evidence in a personal injury case. The plaintiff argued that the discovery request is “not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence when the request is overly broad and improperly invades the plaintiff’s privacy.”

The plaintiff alleged that the accident caused her to suffer a loss of everyday pleasures and enjoyment of life due to “permanent limitations due to the pain, discomfort, and inconvenience to her back, neck, and body.”

Private Footprint is proud to be a sponsor of the Trial Lawyers Association of BC (TLABC) seminar to be held virtually on February 19th. This year’s seminar is only available to TLABC members who limit their practice in the area of personal injury or wrongful death to working exclusively for plaintiffs.

In M.J.M v A.D., social media posts were used to establish that the father could not act as a principled-decision maker for his child, despite seeking primary guardianship.

In Kim v Sodhi, the plaintiff argued that before the accident he maintained an active life which he could no longer do without feeling pain and discomfort.

In Nucci v. Target Corp., the plaintiff brought a personal injury action against the retail store alleging that she slipped and fell on a foreign substance on the floor.

In Smith v Jarnell, the defendant sought production of all the plaintiff’s posts and photos from his social media accounts that showed him participating in activities or going on trips since the accident.

In M.D. v The Co-operators General Insurance Company, the Court found that the social media evidence was unconvincing as to whether or not the applicant suffered from post-concussion and chronic pain symptoms.

In NZ v Economical Insurance Co, the insurer reasonably withheld payments because surveillance evidence and social media evidence showed that the applicant was still involved with his company.

In Terry v Mullowney, the defendants presented evidence from Facebook showing the plaintiff’s “full and active” social life.

In Gale v Purcell, the Court, partly because of social media evidence, found that the plaintiff did not prove beyond a balance of probabilities that her injuries were more than minor.

In Mullens v Toor, the Court denied the relevance of evidence that included the plaintiff’s internet blog and subsequent social media content when assessing damages.

In Moretto v Nicolini-Femia, social media evidence was used to discredit the plaintiff’s claims. The plaintiff was bit by a dog at a party. An action was brought forth for damages related to post-injury scarring, specifically as it related to the plaintiff’s psychological well being.

In MacVicar Estate v MacDonald, a ruling on damages for future loss of income used social media evidence in a limited capacity through the “snapshot” in time approach.

In Mudinger v Ashton, social media evidence was used against the plaintiff to cast doubt on the seriousness of her physical limitations post-accident.