The perils of social media when pursuing a damages claim

Surveillance of claimants in personal injury claims is nothing new.

Many years ago, as a newly qualified solicitor assisting a partner with some heavyweight cases, I remember watching interesting footage of claimants climbing ladders, driving vehicles and even on one occasion memorably demolishing a small building, which arguably were activities inconsistent with their medical evidence.

Such clients were always in a (very) small minority and more often than not the surveillance footage was inconclusive rather than spectacular. So, while surveillance footage is no longer delivered on a nice chunky VHS cassette, little has changed in terms of the content.

Nowadays, the implications of a claimant behaving in a way that is inconsistent with their pleaded case or medical evidence are considerably more drastic than they used to be. One might argue rightly so, but that is a topic for another article. 

It would be difficult for even the most dedicated surveillance operative to make sure they were always there at the right time and place to capture the most helpful, or damning, evidence.

However, with the advent of social media and the compulsion of large swathes of the population sharing their every mundane activity, there may be no need for anything approaching round the clock surveillance, because the claimant will helpfully do the work for you.

It is many years now since I was first confronted with Facebook entries recording a weekend of a claimant’s enthusiastic gardening.

Since then, the volume of such material has expanded and diversified considerably. In addition to the triumphant recording of lawns mowed, DIY projects completed and (occasionally) mountains climbed, all manner of information about fitness regimes and such like is now ‘out there’.

Inconsistent evidence

In the event anyone has any doubts about the damage that can be done by social media posts I invite them to read the approved judgment in the case of Thomas v Owen.

There are plenty of other examples no doubt, but this judgment articulates well the havoc that can be caused by inconsistent evidence carefully gleaned from social media.

Dishonest claimants deserve what they get, but my observation would be that social media usage also poses all kinds of risks to people who are far from dishonest.

For many people, social media is a means of celebrating or recording good news, achievements or triumphs, however modest they may be. Of course there are more serious contributions made, but in the context of personal injury litigation it is the day-to-day social media contributions that are the important ones.

Not long ago, I was forwarded, under cover of a witness statement from the person who had harvested it, various social media content relating to a client of mine.