Social Media Smear Campaigns: The Importance of Being Aware of Client Posts

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) [...]

Forman v. Henkin, 134 A.D.3d 529, 2015 Forman v. Henkin, 20 N.Y.3d 656, 2018 In Forman v. Henkin, 2015, a horseback rider was injured after falling from a horse. The rider and plaintiff issued a claim against the owner of the horse following their injury. The defendant’s motion to compel discovery of the plaintiff’s private […]

Levine v. Culligan 2013 WL 1100404 In Levine v. Culligan 2013, a slip and fall accident led the plaintiff to take legal action against Culligan of Florida after slipping on water leaking from one of their bottles. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant negligently delivered the defective water bottle to her place of work, which […]

Keller v National Farmer Union Prop. & Cas., 2013 WL 27731 In Keller v National Farmer Union Prop. & Cas., the defendant insurer argued that it was entitled to information on the plaintiff’s social media sites to assess her credibility following her claim for damages after alleging to have suffered physical and emotional injuries due […]

Rhone v Schneider Nat’l Carriers, Inc., 2016 WL 1594453 In Rhone v Schneider Nat’l Carriers, Inc., evidence retrieved from the plaintiff’s social media sites contradicted her claims of physical injuries and impairments that resulted from a motor vehicle accident. During the defendant’s private investigation, they found relevant information on the plaintiff’s public social media profiles. […]

Davis v Aetna Life Ins. Co., 2017 In Davis v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., the plaintiff’s social media evidence cast doubts on her alleged health condition in a long-term disability (LTD) dispute. The plaintiff was diagnosed with a health condition which she claimed had affected her physical activity and work capabilities. Consequently, she filed a […]

Kregg v. Maldonado, 951 N.Y.S2d 301  In Kregg v. Maldonado, a New York decision, the defendants discovered that family members of the injured plaintiff had created Facebook and MySpace accounts for the plaintiff and posted on his behalf. The defendants requested the disclosure of all these social media accounts. While there was no contention that […]

Luck v. Shack, 2019 BCSC 1172 In Luck v. Shack, the primary issue was whether the plaintiff’s ability to work full-time was impacted by her accident. The defendants attempted to discredit the plaintiff’s claims by introducing social media posts which showed the plaintiff engaging in post-accident activities that supposedly contradicted her claims that she had difficulty […]

Black v. Metro Life Ins. Co., 244 F Supp 3d 625 (WD Mich 2017) at 628 Black v Metropolitan Life Insurance Company involves an appeal from the trial court’s decision to eliminate the claimant’s benefits under her insurance policy. The plaintiff, who was involved in a motor vehicle accident, alleged that her injuries prevented her from […]

Ehrenberg v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 16-17269, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132036 (E.D. La. Aug. 18, 2017) at 3 Ehrenburg v. State Farm Insurance deals with a situation where the defendant filed a motion to compel the production of the plaintiff’s social media profiles on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook. The defendant alleged that […]

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.