In road traffic accident litigation, evidence is often limited to witness accounts, vehicle damage, and Google Maps images. Judges face the challenge of piecing this together to establish how an accident occurred. Witnesses may struggle with recollection or have unconsciously reconstructed their memories. Even objective evidence, such as photographs of the aftermath, requires interpretation that is susceptible to error. With this in mind, it is unsurprising that telematics data, when presented comprehensively, can decisively influence outcomes.
The use of telematics data in litigation is on the rise. In three recent trials on which I was instructed, it not only provided the evidential edge that achieved the win but also altered the trajectory of evidence and focus of the trial. In each instance, the defendant’s vehicle was equipped with a telematics device that recorded the location and timing of a collision, as well as the vehicle's speed during the captured time period. Raw data was taken from the device and mapped over satellite images, showing the vehicle’s location on a second-by-second basis in the lead-up to, and moments after, the impact.
In one case, the claimant alleged the accident occurred on a stretch of road well beyond a roundabout, while the defendant maintained it happened at the roundabout itself. The telematics data, illustrated through journey mapping, placed the crash point within the roundabout’s first lane, directly contradicting the claimant’s account. The judge acknowledged the limitations of GPS accuracy, such as potential interference from buildings or trees, but ultimately found that coupled with the defendant’s consistent testimony, it warranted preferring the defendant's account and dismissing the claim.
In another case, telematics data was used alongside CCTV footage to assess the movements of both parties prior to impact. The claimant’s version of events was that the defendant stopped in a parking bay before pulling into their path. Telematics data evidenced that the impact occurred before the vehicles reached the parking bays. During cross-examination, the claimant sought to change their account to better fit the telematics data, saying the defendant had pulled over onto double yellow lines earlier on the road.
Fortunately, the telematics data showed no such stop occurred at all, with logs indicated continuous movement up to the point of impact. The claim was subsequently dismissed. The fact that witnesses were influenced to alter their account on review of the telematics data is indicative of its evidential strength and a useful tool that may achieve valuable concessions with credible witnesses.
The hypothesis that telematics data can be used to achieve concessions was actualised in my most recent trial. In this instance, telematics truly steered the trial in its entirety. The case involved an emergency services vehicle, which had overtaken another driver at a roundabout, believing they had slowed down and pulled to the side to let them pass. The defendant maintained they were unaware of the vehicle and had only slowed to ensure it was safe to enter the roundabout. During cross-examination, each witness was taken through the data points on the satellite maps, the logs of their speed, and the records of braking and acceleration.
The evidence allowed recounting of more granular decision-making. Through this, the claimant’s witness accepted they had approached at speed, might have incorrectly assessed the defendant's manoeuvre, and may have missed her moving off to enter the roundabout. This ultimately led to the damning concession that ‘but for’ their emergency services status, they would accept their actions amounted to negligence. This account was not represented in the witness statement and without the telematics evidence presented, would likely never have come to light. Once again, the claim was dismissed.
These cases underscore the evidentiary value of telematics in litigation. Unlike human recollection, which may be clouded by stress or bias, telematics offers timestamped, location-specific data that is objective. While courts remain cautious about treating such data as definitive, its role as a corroborative tool is increasingly recognised. For insurers, the integration of telematics not only enhances underwriting accuracy and customer offerings but also fortifies liability disputes. As judicial reliance on digital evidence grows, telematics may well become a standard feature in the litigation toolkit, providing clarity where memory struggles and supporting fair outcomes based on objective data.
Contact our experts for more information on these cases or utilisation of telematics in the court room.
