Proving Liability in Car Accident Cases Using Google Earth and AI

As the Internet Age continues to evolve, so too does the practice of personal injury law. One of the most significant advancements in recent years is the use of digital mapping and satellite imaging tools like Google Earth in proving liability in car accident cases. These tools have become indispensable to the modern personal injury lawyer’s “toolkit,” offering unprecedented access to visual evidence that can make or break a case.

What is Google Earth

Google Earth is a computer-based mapping platform that allows users to view high-resolution images of nearly any location on Earth. These images come from NASA’s Landsat satellites and other sources and provide a detailed bird’s-eye view of streets, intersections, highways, and terrain. Users can zoom in, rotate views, and even “stand” in a location using Street View, giving a real-world perspective from a desktop screen.

Whether it’s GPS-coordinated pinpointing of exact crash locations or a manual scan of traffic patterns at a busy intersection, Google Earth delivers an incredible range of useful information. What once required helicopter flyovers or expensive aerial photography is now, incredibly, if you are over 35, just a few clicks away.

How We Used Google Earth in Litigation

At Miller & Zois, we use Google Earth in virtually every car accident case we handle. During initial client interviews or accident reviews, we frequently pull up Street View or aerial imagery of the crash site. This lets us visually confirm road layouts, signage, lighting, and traffic patterns without leaving the office.

Here’s how we typically use Google Earth to build liability in car accident injury cases:

• Analyzing Intersection Layouts: Many car crashes happen at intersections, and understanding the visibility, signage, and traffic signal placement is really important.

• Establishing Sightlines: Google Earth can help demonstrate whether a driver could or could not have seen another vehicle, pedestrian, or obstruction.

• Showing Vehicle Movement: By mapping the route of the vehicles involved, we can support or challenge claims about right-of-way, lane changes, or speed.

• Locating Witnesses and Landmarks: It helps to illustrate how close witnesses were to the scene, or where key landmarks (like skid marks or stop signs) are in relation to the collision.

• Demonstrating Road Conditions: Slopes, curves, and shoulder widths are often visible and can be persuasive visual aids.

It’s hard to overstate how much value these images bring to the table. And yet, many car accident lawyers in Maryland still underutilize this free, publicly available tool.

Getting a Google Earth Picture in Evidence

Getting a Google Earth image into evidence can be straightforward, but it depends on how you present it. The most efficient method is a stipulation between counsel. If that is not an option, there are several other admissibility paths:

• Request for Admission: Serve the opposing party with the image and ask them to admit it accurately depicts the scene.

• Witness Testimony: A party, witness, or even a police officer familiar with the crash location can testify that the image fairly and accurately reflects the scene at the time of the accident.

• Judicial Notice: Courts can take judicial notice of facts that are generally known and indisputable. Courts have begun accepting Google Earth and Google Maps images for establishing distances and general layouts, especially when used to confirm GPS coordinates or road configurations. Here is a case where the judge does exact this.  Some states have created a rule to make it easier.   For example, New York state law (CPLR § 4532‑b) now requires courts to take judicial notice of images, maps, distances, and calculations from web mapping services, including Google Maps and Google Earth, if the image bears a creation date and is offered to prove geographic or physical facts. Unless a party objects within the timeline set by law, the court must admit the mapping evidence without further authentication

The foundation for admissibility is similar to that for any photograph: you need a witness to say the image is a fair and accurate representation of the scene as it existed at the time of the crash. This usually satisfies the evidentiary standard.

How EXACTLY Do You Get Them in Evidence?

You can get the Google Earth images through a witness who has been at the scene.  “Is Ex. 1 a true and correct representation of how this intersection looked at the time of the crash?” Assuming the witness confirms, proceed to admit the evidence.

I am not aware of any Maryland authority directly addressing the admission of this kind of material into evidence.  (I just did a search again in 2025.) I would not be surprised if someday we have an evidentiary rule specifically addressing the issue.

I know there are cases where you might have a problem getting Google Earth images admitted. But the odds are in your favor.

Here is one path:

Attorney: “Let me show you what’s been marked as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1. Do you recognize this intersection?”
Witness: “Yes, I do.”
Attorney: “Is this a fair and accurate depiction of how the intersection looked on the date of the accident?”
Witness: “Yes.”
Attorney: “Your Honor, we move to admit Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1.”

Unless there is a really good objection about authenticity, hearsay, or prejudice, the image is usually admitted.

The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Car Accident Litigation

As technology advances, artificial intelligence (AI) is also transforming the way lawyers investigate, analyze, and present personal injury cases. Like Google Earth, AI tools are reshaping how evidence is gathered and understood, particularly in car accident litigation.

At Miller & Zois, we’ve started integrating AI into various aspects of case evaluation and preparation. Here’s how AI is, all of a sudden, becoming part of our litigation “toolkit”:

• Accident Reconstruction: AI can help synthesize vehicle telemetry data, dash cam footage, and police reports to create accurate models of how a crash occurred. When combined with Google Earth, these reconstructions become powerful visual aids for settlement negotiations or jury trials.

• Image and Video Analysis: AI tools can analyze traffic camera or dash cam footage frame-by-frame, flagging points of impact, identifying traffic signal status, or highlighting evasive maneuvers—things a human might miss on first viewing.

• Medical Record Review: AI can assist in organizing and analyzing thousands of pages of medical records to identify key injuries, pre-existing conditions, and treatment gaps, helping to build a stronger claim for damages.

• Pattern Recognition: Machine learning algorithms can identify patterns in similar cases—such as liability outcomes in specific intersections or injury types associated with particular vehicle makes—which can inform strategy and settlement valuations.

• Legal Research and Brief Writing: Tools like ChatGPT are being used to streamline legal drafting, explore legal theories, and quickly surface relevant case law. While human review is still essential, the time savings are substantial.

Importantly, AI does not replace the experience and judgment of seasoned lawyers. It is too inaccurate. You have to double-check everything, or you are bound to end up looking foolish. But by pairing digital tools like Google Earth with AI-powered analysis, we can prepare smarter, more compelling cases that better serve our clients. As the legal landscape continues to evolve, attorneys who embrace this technology will be best positioned to uncover the truth and achieve meaningful results.