Public access to recorded EDR Data first became commercially available in the year 2000. Therefore, use of this valuable information has only recently begun to find its way into the courtroom. However, as the data is becoming more accessible, its use in the courtroom is growing, and has been very favorably received with the data being recognized as reliable and/or admissible, and with the use of the data having a significant impact on its subject case. The following is a list of litigated cases involving the use of EDR data across the country.*


Benchmark Cases Considering the Reliability/Admissibility of EDR Data:

People v. Muscarnera, 2007 NY Slip Op 27224; 2007 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3843; 237 N.Y.L.J. 95 (New York – 1^st Dist., 2007)(criminal case of DUI and reckless driving of second degree; held no Frye hearing necessary to determine reliability of EDR evidence; held EDR evidence reliable as a matter of law; only hearing on admissibility in the specific case necessary).

Matos v. State of Florida, 899 So. 2d 403 (Fla. App. – 4^th Dist. 2005) (criminal case of manslaughter from high speed accident; EDR data recording speed admissible; no Frye hearing necessary; court held prior case law and evidence established general acceptance and reliability).

People v. Slade, 233 N.Y.L.J. 11 (New York Sup – Nassau County 2005) (criminal homicide case from fatal auto collision; warrant was required to search EDR from passenger compartment; at Frye hearing, court found general acceptance in scientific community and admitted EDR evidence).

People v. Hopkins, 800 N.Y.S.2d 353 (New York - Monroe County 2004) (criminal homicide case for reckless accident; court held that a Frye hearing was not necessary because case law and evidence established general acceptance in scientific community).

People v. Christmann, 776 N.Y.S.2d 437 (New York – Wayne County 2004) (criminal homicide high speed accident; retrieval w/o warrant not violation of rights; EDR data admissible as previously established in Bachman (below) as generally accepted in scientific community).

Bachman v. General Motors Corporation, 332 Ill. App. 3d 760 (Ill. App. – 4^th Dist. 2002) (Airbag product defect case; process with Vetronix download and EDR data itself found to be generally accepted in scientific community and thus admissible; suggested expert testimony may not be needed to prove up EDR data).


Criminal Cases Where EDR Data Accepted in Evidence; Admissibility Not Challenged:

People v. Knight, 2004 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS (California 5^th App. Dist. 2004) (Criminal DUI manslaughter case; EDR data used to establish and corroborate speed prior to impact). CANNOT BE CITED AS CASE PRECEDENT.

People v. French, 2003 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS (Cal. App.- Division Three 2003) (criminal negligent homicide; EDR data used to rule out electrical failures). CANNOT BE CITED AS CASE PRECEDENT.


Airbag Product Defect/Negligence Cases; Admissibility Not Challenged:

Howard V. Miami Township Fire Division, 2007 Ohio 1508; 2007 Ohio App. LEXIS 1394 (Ohio App. – 2007) (negligence death case utilized EDR data to determine the speed of the vehicle the decedent was driving to show contributory negligence of the driver).

Lloyd v. General Motors Corporation, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4164 (U.S. Dist. - South Carolina 2006) (EDR data used to support motion for summary judgment; motion granted)

Cansler v. General Motors Corporation, 765 N.E.2d 698 (Indiana App.- Second Dist. 2002) (EDR download confirmed non-deployment was proper)

Batiste v. General Motors Corporation, 802 So.2d 686 (Louisiana – Fourth Circuit) (EDR download confirmed non-deployment was proper).

Harris v. General Motors Corporation, 201 F.3d 800 (U.S. Sixth Circuit 2000) (EDR data used to support motion for summary judgment; motion denied for other reasons).

Perez-Trujillo v. Volvo Car Corporation, 137 F.3d 50 (U.S. First Circuit 1998) (EDR data admitted but did not create irrefutable evidence on motion for summary judgment)

Sipes v. General Motors Corporation, 946 S.W.2d 143 (Texas – App. 1997) (EDR data used to prove non-deployment was proper).


Discovery Issues Involving EDR data:

Cobb v. Dawson, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4632 (U.S. Dist. – Georgia 2007) (Court granted motion to extend discovery to allow Defendant opportunity to discover (retrieve) EDR data).

Padilla v. Toyota, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25720 (U.S. Dist. – New Jersey 2005) (Court granted motion to compel discovery of EDR data from Toyota).

Brill-Edwards v. Ryder Truck Rental, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25329 (U.S. Dist. – Connecticut 2003)(Motion to compel testimony from Defendant’s purely consulting witness who merely retrieved EDR data was denied. Court held that data itself was no expert opinion, but was simply factual evidence that could be relied on by designated expert without the need to designated data retrieving expert).

* This list and the summaries are not intended to act as legal advice, nor does Collision Data Services guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the list, cases or summaries above. The list is being provided as a matter of convenience and is subject to the Terms & Conditions located at the link below. Please consult with an attorney before relying on these cases.