Presently, items that can be easily located on the world wide web are not so readily admissible at trial. This is because “websites are not self-authenticating.” See Digiovanni v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust, 226 So. 3d 984, 989 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017), quoting Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance v. Darragh, 95 So. 3d 897, 900 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012). For example, under the current law, a party wishing to introduce a photograph from Google Maps must authenticate the photograph “in the same manner as any other photographic evidence before it is admitted in evidence.” See City of Miami v. Kho, 290 So. 3d 942, 944 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019).

This means the attorney seeking to admit a photograph has two options. “The first is the ‘pictorial testimony’ method, which requires a witness with personal knowledge to testify that the image fairly and accurately depicts a scene,” citing Dolan v. State, 743 So. 2d 544, 545 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). This sounds simple enough, but who, among your clients, or witnesses, can testify under oath that a Google Maps photograph taken of a sidewalk three years before your client’s trip and fall, fairly and accurately depicts what the sidewalk, including all cracks and unevenness, looked like at that time?

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]