If you have been injured in a Charles County, Maryland, car accident, you are entitled to make an insurance claim and/or file a personal injury lawsuit to recover compensation for your injuries and for any damage to property (like your vehicle). Very likely, one type of evidence that you will need to use to make your claim or prove your case will be “circumstantial evidence.” That is a type of evidence that is different from “direct evidence.” Both types of evidence are admissible under the Rule of Evidence here in Maryland. Knowing the difference and understanding how each type of evidence is used in proving a claim or case is one of the hallmarks of experienced and successful Maryland auto accident attorneys. If you have suffered injuries in a Charles County, Maryland, car or auto accident, contact us here at the Law Office of Robert Castro. Our number is (301) 870-1200, or use our contact page. In this article, our tough and aggressive lawyers discuss how circumstantial evidence can help you maximize your settlement and win your case.

What is circumstantial evidence?

Circumstantial evidence is evidence that can be inferred to exist and be true because of the circumstances surrounding the evidence. Circumstantial evidence is contrasted with what is called “direct evidence.” In general, evidence comes in several forms, like photographs, written documents, and testimony from witnesses. Testimony generally involves what a person saw, heard, or did. All of these forms can be either direct or circumstantial.

Hypothetical example

Let’s look at a hypothetical involving a driver’s claim that he tried to brake his vehicle before making impact with the other car in the accident. Under oath, the driver hypothetically testifies: “I immediately hit my brakes and held down the brakes until the crash in the intersection.” The testimony is direct evidence that helps prove that he applied the brakes. Another type of direct evidence might come from an onboard camera with a view of the brakes that might show when the driver applied the brakes. Likewise, the vehicle’s “black box” might have a diagnostic record of the exact time when the brakes were applied. Likely, those are the only types of direct evidence that might exist.

By contrast, there might be several bits of circumstantial evidence. Assume that the driver hypothetically testifies that he heard his tires squealing and felt the vehicle was fish-tailing. Those statements would be circumstantial evidence since tires squealing and fish-tailing are consequences of efforts to apply brakes during an emergency. Most of us know that when brakes are applied in an emergency, tires can squeal, and cars may swerve and fish-tail. Thus, from the squealing and fish-tailing, it can be inferred that the driver “hit the brakes.” The same would be true for photos of tire tracks/skid marks on the pavement.

Taken together, the direct and circumstantial evidence in our hypothetical provides very strong proof that the driver did, indeed, “hit the brakes” before the accident.

Contact Waldorf, MD Personal Injury Attorney Robert Castro Today

This article has been provided by the Law Office of Robert Castro. For more information or questions, contact our office to speak to an experienced Maryland personal injury lawyer at (301) 870-1200. We are Waldorf, MD, Personal Injury lawyers. Our address is 2670 Crain Highway, Waldorf, MD 20601.