A camera's presence does not establish that it recorded the relevant view or interval.
Short answer
Ask for the video early, and ask for more than the clip of the fall. A request that reaches back before the fall and forward past it, names the cameras, and asks for original files and export details gives the best chance of useful footage.
Point | What it means |
|---|---|
A clip from 3:19 to 3:21 (hypothetical fall at 3:20 p.m.) | It shows you walking in and going down, and probably nothing about how long the spill had been there |
A preservation request | It doesn't guarantee the footage exists or give you an immediate right to a copy |
Missing video | It doesn't prove a claim on its own or entitle anyone to a jury instruction |
Video for an injured shopper | It can fill in what pain, confusion, or a blocked view kept you from seeing |
Video for a lawyer | Its value depends on what the system actually recorded and how much a lawyer can reliably read from it |
Related guides |
Define the question before choosing the interval
Each part of a recording answers a different question, as this hypothetical 3:20 p.m. fall shows.
Segment of the recording | What it might show | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
2:20 to 3:19 p.m. | The spill appearing, shoppers stepping around it, an employee walking past, a customer reporting it | Notice: how long the hazard was there and whether the store knew |
3:19 to 3:21 p.m. | The approach and the fall | The mechanism of the fall |
3:21 to 3:50 p.m. | Employees responding, the cleanup, and where witnesses were standing | Witnesses and the condition right afterward |
A clip of the fall alone may show contact and nothing about how long the hazard existed. The right window depends on the theory of the case and on what each camera could see, and no universal number of hours fits every fall.
What the request should include | Hypothetical example |
|---|---|
The store address, department, time, and a fixed landmark | "The frozen pizza case across from the bakery," at about 3:20 p.m. |
Why a second view matters | Camera 12 on the self-checkout corridor shows the approach, while Camera 7 in the aisle shows the floor |
Who controls outside cameras | If the parking lot cameras belong to the landlord, a letter to the store alone may not protect them |
Why the window runs from 2:20 to 3:50 rather than 3:00 to 3:30 | A written reason answers a later "overbroad" objection and keeps the request from saving the fall while losing the hour that matters for notice |
When to adjust the window | Once the store shares a camera map or system details |
Build the request around the grocery location
In a grocery store, the camera directly above the fall may not show the floor at all.
What might block the view (hypothetical) | Where else to look |
|---|---|
A tall refrigerated case between the camera and the floor | A camera at the far end of the aisle, or one covering the cross-aisle |
A seasonal display, like a pallet of watermelons | The view from the next department, which may show where the spill came from |
A checkout fixture or bagging stand | The overhead camera for the neighboring lane |
The request should ask which views existed that day, because a visible camera may not have been working, recording, or controlled by the same company at the time. Naming the approach and nearby fixed landmarks helps the store find the right footage.
Timing point | What it means |
|---|---|
Brookshire Brothers, a Texas grocery case | That store's system recorded over itself on a roughly 30-day loop, and the shopper's lawyer asked for 2.5 hours of footage almost a year after the fall [S5] |
Kroger's own retention schedule | None has been verified for this article, so the request should go out promptly, with no waiting for a presumed overwrite date |
Why the hypothetical window starts at 2:20 | Earlier footage may show when the spill appeared, who walked past it, and whether anyone inspected the aisle |
Why it runs past the fall | Later footage may identify witnesses and the cleanup |
How long a window is fair | A longer window needs a reason in the facts and should stay proportionate to the dispute |
Tracking | Log the delivery of the request and each follow-up on separate lines |
Identify custodians and record systems
Video is only one kind of electronic evidence, and each kind may sit with a different custodian (hypothetical map).
Record | Likely custodian | Status |
|---|---|---|
Camera footage and export logs | The store's system administrator or an outside security vendor | Hold requested; not yet confirmed |
The incident report and its photo attachments | Store management or a claims office | Requested |
Employee messages about the spill | Store devices or a messaging system | Unknown whether any exist |
Inspection or floor-walk entries | Store management | Requested |
A refrigeration work order | A maintenance contractor | Separate request needed |
The assistant manager who can pull up playback on the office monitor may not control how long the system keeps footage, or be able to save it permanently.
Point | What it means |
|---|---|
Watching versus controlling | Being able to watch the video and having legal control of it are different things |
Who should get the hold request | Whoever can actually place a hold, whether that turns out to be a store administrator, a company security office, or an outside vendor |
Records that may not exist | A national retailer's size doesn't prove that a particular store logs floor walks electronically or that employees messaged each other about the spill |
What to ask for | What the store actually uses, or what investigation reasonably identifies |
What the map shows | Which searches are finished and which questions are still open |
Related companies | The map keeps a family of companies from being treated as one custodian, while the control and discovery rules still decide who must produce what |
Preserve original exports and understandable copies
Ask for native or original-format exports where they're reasonably available, plus any player software and the system's export report.
Version of the video | What it keeps | What it can lose |
|---|---|---|
A native export in the system's own format | Metadata, full image quality, and frame timing | It may need the vendor's player software to open |
A screen recording of playback | The basic picture, which may still be informative | Metadata and quality, and it can change frame timing, so its limits should be written down and it should never be labeled "original video" |
A phone video forwarded through a messaging app | A viewable copy | Quality and the original filename, so ask the sender for the original file instead of screenshots |
Handling step | Why it matters |
|---|---|
Leave the received files alone and review copies | The original stays exactly as it arrived |
Log the source, the date, the filenames, and every hand-off | Anyone can trace how each copy was made |
Record a checksum on day one | It can show that a file hasn't changed since, but not that Camera 7's clock was right or that the export includes every frame the system recorded |
Keep a client's original phone video and note the phone model | It shows how each copy relates to the first recording |
A practical export review protocol
Here is what a handling log might say for the hypothetical, step by step.
Step | Hypothetical log entry |
|---|---|
1. Log the delivery | "Two .avi files from the claims office, received June 3; they need the vendor's player" |
2. Compare it with the request | "Asked for Cameras 7 and 12, 2:20 to 3:50; received Camera 7, 3:15 to 3:25 only" |
3. Hash the original | "SHA-256 checksum recorded at 10:14 a.m. and stored with the log" |
4. Make a working copy | "Copy A made for review; original moved to the evidence folder" |
5. Test playback | "Copy A plays at normal speed; original not opened" |
6. Label working aids | "Still at 3:19:52, enlarged four times, marked WORKING AID; normal-speed clip kept with it" |
Zooming in on a frame won't recover detail the camera never captured.
Working aid or opinion | Its limit |
|---|---|
An enlarged still | It can't add detail the camera never recorded |
A video expert's testimony | It can explain compression or dropped frames, but it shouldn't point to a grape or a puddle that isn't actually visible |
Any demonstrative offered in court | It needs a foundation under the applicable evidence rules [S7] [S11] |
Test clocks continuity and visibility
Four checks catch most timing problems, shown here with hypothetical examples.
Check | Question to ask | Hypothetical problem |
|---|---|---|
Clock | Does the overlay match an independent event? | Camera 7 shows 3:10 p.m. for a sale the receipt prints at 3:14 |
Daylight saving | Was the clock adjusted, and by whom? | Footage from early November runs an hour off |
Continuity | Does the system record continuously or only on motion? | The clip jumps from 3:02 to 3:09 with no explanation |
Visibility | Can the floor be seen at all? | A pallet of bottled water blocks the spot until 3:19 |
Camera 7 and Camera 12 may not agree, since someone may have reset one by hand after the time change, and export software can display time differently again.
Issue | How to handle it |
|---|---|
An offset between clocks | Note it only when the evidence supports it |
A gap like 3:02 to 3:09 | Ordinary causes include motion-triggered recording, an export cut short, dropped frames, or a pallet in the way, so ask how the system works and check its logs or a custodian's testimony |
Calling the gap deletion | A jump isn't, by itself, proof that someone deleted footage |
Calling the gap harmless | It isn't harmless until someone has considered what those seven minutes might have shown about the disputed issue |
Visibility | A camera can record the aisle all afternoon and never show clear liquid on white tile, and a display can hide the spot until the fall, so say what's visible and what isn't |
Proof of duration | The notice article covers how these limits affect proof of how long a hazard existed |
Match the camera clock to independent anchors
Take a 3:14 p.m. receipt, a shopper who remembers falling just before paying, and a 3:10 image of her at a register.
Possible explanation (hypothetical) | What would confirm it |
|---|---|
The camera clock runs four minutes slow | The same offset on other known events, like the 6:00 a.m. opening |
The shopper remembers the order of events differently | A witness, or another camera view showing when the fall happened |
The 3:10 image shows someone else's transaction | The register number and the items on the receipt |
A receipt is a useful comparison point only after the transaction and the person are reliably identified.
Clock question | Why it matters |
|---|---|
Was the camera time synchronized? | An unsynchronized clock drifts from real time |
Was it changed for daylight saving, or displayed differently in the export software? | Either one can shift every timestamp |
Which time does the export filename show? | It might be the moment the file was saved, not the event |
Which clock does a screen recording show? | It can show the reviewer's laptop clock beside the camera overlay |
Which clock does the timeline use? | Every timeline should say |
What if the difference can't be resolved? | Use a range and explain it, because when clocks disagree an honest interval is more believable than a neat minute-by-minute sequence |
A hypothetical recording comparison
Assume a shopper falls beside a display at 3:20 p.m., and three views exist.
Recording | What it covers | Potential use | Important limitation |
|---|---|---|---|
A one-minute lead-in | 3:19 to 3:20 p.m. | The approach and the mechanism | Little information about how long the hazard existed |
An upper-body view | 2:50 to 3:30 p.m., showing people from the waist up | Traffic and employee movements | The floor may be invisible |
A floor view | 3:05 p.m. onward | Position and observable timing | What the object is, and how clearly it shows, still need checking |
Suppose the floor view shows an object at 3:08 p.m. and again at the fall, but a cart blocks the area from 3:10 to 3:16.
Step | What counsel should do |
|---|---|
Identify the object | Confirm it's the same object at 3:08 and at the fall, and that the view stays clear |
Handle the gap | Name the six-minute gap rather than smoothing it into a continuous twelve-minute hazard |
Build the demonstrative timeline | Mark 3:10 to 3:16 as unknown and cite a source for every entry |
Avoid invented visuals | Don't animate an object where none is visible |
Propose a reconstruction | Disclose its assumptions and get the necessary evidentiary rulings before anyone shows it as proof |
Distinguish missing footage from footage that cannot answer the question
Two different problems get called "missing video," and they need different follow-up.
Problem | Hypothetical | Follow-up |
|---|---|---|
The clip is complete but can't show the hazard | It shows the fall accurately and nothing about a clear puddle | Treat it as a limit of the image, not necessarily a deletion |
The export is too short | It starts at 3:19 because someone pulled only a short interval | Ask whether the earlier native recording still exists, who chose the interval, and whether anyone reviewed other views; keep the emails about those choices, since the answers may show an ordinary retrieval problem, a disagreement over scope, or a preservation issue that needs a judge |
The Anderson-Brown case came out of a Duncanville Kroger on the morning of May 10, 2020, when a shopper slipped on a puddle in an aisle. [S15]
Evidence the shopper had | What it could show |
|---|---|
A picture of the puddle | The puddle was there after the fall |
A video that partly shows the fall | That she fell in that spot |
The store's hours | The store had been open nearly three hours |
None of it showed how long the puddle had been on the floor, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Kroger in an unpublished opinion that binds no Texas state court.
Proposition | Can one clip support it? |
|---|---|
The shopper was in the aisle | Often |
How the fall happened | Sometimes, if the feet are in view |
An employee's route past the spot | Only if the view covers that route |
When the liquid became visible | Only with a clear, continuous view of the floor |
All four at once | Only after checking what the clip actually shows, so a lawyer shouldn't cite one clip for everything |
Draft a preservation request with factual specificity
A preservation request should be adapted by an attorney to the facts of the fall.
Part of the request | What it covers |
|---|---|
The occurrence and location | The fall, the store, and the spot in the store |
The recordings and time window | The camera categories and the interval, with the original files and related export information |
The request itself | That the recipient suspend routine destruction of relevant material within its possession or control, consistent with the applicable duty |
Follow-up | Confirm delivery, then check whether a hold was actually put in place |
A form letter doesn't make law, and the store may push back on the scope, on who controls the records, or on whether litigation was reasonably anticipated.
Common assumption | What actually happens |
|---|---|
The store has to comply with the letter as written | Keep every response and work toward a resolution |
A shopper's email creates a production deadline | It doesn't |
Sanctions are guaranteed if the footage later disappears | They aren't |
A tracking sheet keeps the stages apart (hypothetical entries).
Status | Hypothetical entry | What it means |
|---|---|---|
Requested | Letter delivered by certified mail on day 2 | The store has notice of the request |
Acknowledged | Claims office email on day 6 saying "received" | The letter arrived, which doesn't prove the files were held |
Preserved | The store says on day 9 that "the clip was saved" | Ask which views and which minutes were saved |
Produced | Two files received after suit is filed | Compare them with the original request |
Disputed | The store calls the 2:20 to 3:19 window overbroad | Keep the correspondence and seek a ruling if needed |
Understand what Texas spoliation law requires
Brookshire Brothers v. Aldridge, the leading Texas case, arose from a grocery-store fall near a display table. [S5]
Question | What Brookshire Brothers says |
|---|---|
What were the facts? | The fall happened about 15 feet from a rotisserie-chicken area, and the store kept about eight minutes of video, from 5:01 to just before 5:09 p.m. |
Who decides? | The trial court, outside the jury's presence |
When does a duty to preserve arise? | When a party knows or reasonably should know there's a substantial chance a claim will be filed, and that evidence in its control will be material and relevant |
What counts as a breach? | Failing to use reasonable care to preserve the evidence, whether intentionally or negligently |
What remedy fits? | One that is proportionate, tied directly to the conduct, and not excessive |
When can the jury get a spoliation instruction? | After intentional spoliation plus a finding that a lesser remedy won't do, or in the rare negligent case that irreparably deprives the other side of any meaningful ability to present a claim or defense |
What happened in that case? | Giving the instruction was an abuse of discretion, and the court ordered a new trial |
The analysis is fact-specific: a missing recording isn't an automatic admission, and an adverse-inference instruction isn't the routine result of a retention problem.
Task | What it involves |
|---|---|
Analyze the record | Counsel should analyze the actual record and check how later decisions have treated the case |
A spoliation motion in the hypothetical | It would lay out what Camera 7 recorded, who controlled it, how the preservation request was handled, and how losing 2:20 to 3:19 hurts the notice question |
Overlapping evidence | If Camera 12 or a witness covers the same minutes, the prejudice shrinks |
The only evidence of duration | If the lost hour was the only evidence of how long the spill sat there, say so plainly, without claiming to know what the footage would have shown |
The shopper's own duties | Keep the photos, the texts, and the social media posts about the fall, including the ones that look bad |
Privacy and scope | Your lawyer can handle them, while selective deletion starts a second fight that pulls attention away from the injury |
Obtain production through the proper procedure
Before a lawsuit, counsel can ask the store to cooperate and can consider presuit options.
Stage | What applies |
|---|---|
A Rule 202 presuit deposition | A court can order one only after finding that it may prevent a failure or delay of justice in an anticipated suit, or that its likely benefit outweighs the burden or expense, so it isn't open-ended discovery before deciding whether to sue [S6] |
After suit | The discovery rules, court orders, and proportionality limits govern, and federal court has its own procedures [S11] |
If the production comes up short, pin down exactly how, because a short technical exchange can clear up what looks like a dispute.
Question or task | Hypothetical or detail |
|---|---|
Did the camera exist that day? | Camera 12 may have been offline |
Which clock did the search use? | The camera's clock or real time |
Was a file left out for a technical reason? | It needed the vendor's player |
If a judge gets involved | A clean record of requests and answers explains the relief being sought |
Authentication before trial | Figure out who can testify to where the recording came from and how the system works, or what other foundation will be used [S7] |
Working copies | Keep a list of every caption, zoom, and speed change |
Weighing clips | A dramatic clip nobody can authenticate may be worth less than a plain one with solid support |
Why this work matters when choosing counsel
Aaron Herbert's official State Bar profile lists his board certification in Personal Injury Trial Law. [S1]
Ask the firm | Why it matters |
|---|---|
How would you preserve the recordings in my case? | A method you can follow and check is worth more than a promise that video will prove the store wrong |
How would you check the timing and handle any gaps? | Clock problems and gaps decide what the video can actually prove |
Your part is simpler: pin down the exact spot, keep your original files, and tell the lawyer about any calls or emails with the store.
Next step | Details |
|---|---|
Contact the firm | Reach The Law Firm of Aaron A. Herbert or request a case evaluation with the date, the store address, and the records you have |
What you need to know about cameras | Nothing; you don't need to know anything about the camera system |
A deletion warning | If anyone told you the footage might be deleted, mention that first |
Related guides | The knowledge hub; notice and inspection evidence for what employees knew; discovery and corporate depositions for who can explain the system or the export |
The rule of thumb | Preserve first, verify carefully, and claim no more than the recording shows |
What the shopper should expect from counsel
Three milestones are worth asking about separately, along with a few related questions.
Milestone or question | What to expect |
|---|---|
Did a preservation notice go out? | A yes or no, with the date |
Did the store acknowledge it? | A separate answer from the first |
Did a request for the actual recordings follow? | Another separate step |
Which missing record could change how my claim is valued? | A specific answer |
Does formal discovery make sense yet? | A reasoned yes or no |
Can you get me the video right away? | No lawyer can get instant access to a private retailer's video just because someone was hurt |
What should I get instead? | A prompt, documented effort through the proper procedures, and a straight account of any gaps |
At a consultation with Aaron Herbert's firm, ask how the video would be used to test notice, beyond showing the fall; his verified board certification in Personal Injury Trial Law makes that a fair question. [S1]
What a complete recording can do | Why that helps you |
|---|---|
Strengthen the case | The footage may show how long the hazard sat there |
Reveal a weakness | It's better to learn that before deciding whether to settle |
Show that another source is needed | Any of these outcomes beats settling on an incomplete picture |
Next resource | The discovery article covers getting and authenticating the records |
Sources and legal context
How each source applies depends on your facts and current law, and none is a firm result.
Note | Authority | Used for |
|---|---|---|
License date (November 6, 2002) and board certification in Personal Injury Trial Law | ||
Brookshire Brothers, Ltd. v. Aldridge, 438 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. 2014), majority opinion from the Supreme Court of Texas | The grocery-store facts, the 30-day recording loop, and the spoliation framework | |
Texas Judicial Branch rules directory and the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended through October 1, 2026 | Rule 202 presuit depositions and Texas discovery | |
Authentication and demonstrative foundations | ||
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the federal rules directory | How federal practice differs | |
Anderson-Brown v. Kroger Texas, L.P., No. 22-10985 (5th Cir. Mar. 17, 2023) (unpublished), opinion from the Fifth Circuit | The Duncanville puddle and why a partial fall video may not prove duration |