Google Glass can become a breakthrough innovation in the litigation of personal injury cases. A firm or attorney using the wearable technology can allow a jury or judge a first-hand perspective that was previously only left to the imagination. The ability to communicate the narrative of a case and the consequences of an injury can be greatly enhanced by using Google Glass.
A recent article in the ABA Journal notes that a law firm in Phoenix has provided some of their personal injury clients access to Google Glass devices. By using Google Glass, a personal injury victim can demonstrate how difficult life has been rendered through literally that person’s own eyes and perspective. A judge or jury can see how hard it is for an injured person to cope with the challenges of daily living and better empathize with the person’s loss and suffering. Such empathy can translate to greater recovery for damages and a better litigation result for the injured person.
Attorneys can also use wearable technology when presenting expert testimony. Attorneys can equip an expert with Google Glass so that the expert can provide a first-hand view of the evaluation of an injury or an accident scene. Such a viewpoint can greatly enhance an understanding of what occurred in a case and the appropriate damages for recovery. Even the most complicated accident scene can become more obvious to a jury when literally seen through the guided eyes of an expert via video obtained through Google Glass.
Google Glass can be an implement to sharpen litigation skills when training for trial situations. Mock jurors wearing Google Glass can provide keen insight to how a jury is digesting evidence presented in a case. By watching what the jurors are actually looking at during a mock case, lawyers can glean whether the evidence being presented is hitting home convincingly with the jurors or missing completely.
Google Glass is a tech innovation that affects perspective, or more accurately, how perspective is conveyed. A personal injury case is entirely about whether an attorney can convince a judge, jury or other arbitrator that his or her perspective of the case is the most truthful and accurate. How better to do that then by allowing a person evaluating a case to see literally from a injured person’s direct perspective or from an expert’s first-hand interpretation of the facts.