The headline reads “Two injured in I-470 crash” and the story is about a semi-truck and car crash in Kansas. The Kansas Highway Patrol investigated this two-vehicle accident caused by a rear tire on a 1988 Mercury Grand Marquis blowing out and causing the driver to lose control. Believe it or not, this one may actually be a case based on a failure to do maintenance on the car. We all have a duty to properly maintain our cars and trucks and to not drive an unsafe car on the highway. In this instance the injured passengers and those people in the other truck need to preserve the tires for evidence. Photographing the tires to show the wear and tear along with the tread depth on each is not just important, but necessary evidence. My guess is they are mismatched and the tread is pretty worn. That’s evidence that needs to be preserved. So this seemingly small case presents us with a lesson in evidentiary preservation.

Lawyers see this all the time. A client comes in with a story about how they were seriously injured in a car accident and how the vehicle owner told them about how the tires were worn. But the tires are destroyed and now the owner has a slightly different story about the tires. So it becomes a swearing match. To make it worse, the injured passenger never really looked at the tires, they have only the driver’s statement, which the driver now denies saying. So the lawyer does a quick assessment of what’s this going to cost me, what is the potential to win the case and the risk of losing? In many instances we send the potential client away because the evidence isn’t sound enough and the risk of loss high. Good photographs showing the actual tread depth or the actual tires would make the case. Without them you have nothing more than a good story. Preservation of evidence is your duty because the burden of proof is always on the injured plaintiff. For further information consider reading these stories from past blog posts.

• Systematic Destruction of Evidence
• Persuading the Jury: Lawsuits are not about "blame".
• After Congress should we ditch the insurance industry?