![]() ![]() In reaching its decision, the court found that Google Earth is typically authenticated by complying with Illinois’ own version of Rule 901(b) (9), which provides identical language to the federal rule. ![]() The appellate court noted that, typically, judicial notice may be taken in circumstances presented in that case, such as “establishing geographical facts or determining the distance from one location to another.” However, the court held that the Google Earth images required additional authentication before they could be considered for purposes of summary judgment. The plaintiff asserted that the trial court had erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant because, based on various Google Earth images taken over a period of several years, the city had constructive notice of the gap that existed between the bridge’s pavers. May 11, 2023), the plaintiff had fallen while walking on a pedestrian bridge and filed two claims against the City of Naperville. Some courts have used this or similar language to exclude Google Earth satellite images that contain labels and markers in instances where no evidence has been presented to prove the accuracy of such labels and/or markers.įor example, an Illinois appellate court recently upheld a trial court’s decision to preclude consideration Google Earth satellite images that included timestamps in connection with a motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, litigants should be mindful when making use of such tools, as such additions may affect the image’s admissibility.įederal Rule of Evidence 901(b)(9) provides that evidence “describing a process or system and showing that it produces an accurate result” satisfies the requirement of authentication necessary for admissibility. While Google Earth uses some automatic labeling features, it also allows users to easily insert their own markers or labels onto satellite images, an act that some courts have deemed to impair the authenticity of the image. Recent Decisions Regarding Admissibility of Google Earth Images Thus, for parties who wish to use Google Earth images in a litigation context, it is important to remain mindful of the potential challenges associated with the admissibility of such images. For instance, courts are analyzing closely the markers and labels of each image, with particular emphasis on date markers. Growing concern surrounding emerging technology that allows digital modification of online images has led some courts to apply evidentiary rules more stringently against parties seeking to rely upon Google Earth images. ![]() While pictorial testimony has typically been used to authenticate photographic evidence, courts are now drawing distinctions between ordinary photographs and Google Earth satellite imagery. In litigated claims, the admissibility of such images may be critical for both insurers and policyholders alike. These images can be particularly useful where the claimed loss potentially involves pre-existing damage that falls outside of the applicable policy period, which may have an impact on whether and to what extent insurance coverage is afforded under the applicable policy. In the context of disputed first-party property claims, Google Earth images can be helpful in establishing a property’s pre-loss condition, changes in the property’s condition over time (including wear and tear), and the existence or non-existence of specific structures or property on the premises. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |