Can AI Crash Video Be Used to Blame You?
After a Michigan crash, there is often video. A dashcam, a doorbell camera, a parking lot security feed, or the other driver’s recorder may have caught a few seconds of what happened. Insurers increasingly run that footage through artificial intelligence that claims to measure speeds, reconstruct the moment of impact, and assign fault. When the software points a finger at you, the insurer treats it as proof and uses it to cut or deny your claim. This guide explains, in plain terms, how AI video analysis is used in Michigan injury cases, why these conclusions are far less certain than they look, and how fault and video evidence really work under Michigan law.
What AI Video Analysis Claims To Do
Software marketed to insurers promises to turn a short clip into a story about fault. It tracks the vehicles frame by frame, estimates how fast each was moving, calculates distances and angles, and produces a tidy reconstruction of who did what. Some tools even score the likelihood that one driver caused the crash. The output looks scientific, complete with numbers and diagrams, and that is exactly the point. An adjuster can wave a printout that says the algorithm found you 60 percent at fault and treat the matter as settled.
It is not settled. A few seconds of low-quality footage, often from a moving camera at an odd angle, is thin material for precise physics. Frame rates blur fast motion. Lenses distort distance. The software does not know the road was wet, that a light had just changed, or that the other driver drifted out of the lane a moment before the clip began. A confident number built on shaky inputs is still a shaky number, and Michigan law does not let an insurer treat its own software’s guess as the final word on fault.
How Fault Actually Works in Michigan
Fault matters in a Michigan injury case, but a single percentage from a video tool does not control it. To recover money for pain and suffering against an at-fault driver, you must first meet the serious-impairment threshold in MCL 500.3135, as the Michigan Supreme Court explained in McCormick v Carrier, 487 Mich 180 (2010). Your share of fault then affects what you can recover. Under Michigan’s comparative fault rules in MCL 600.2959, your damages are reduced by your percentage of fault, and if you are found more than 50 percent at fault, you cannot recover noneconomic damages such as pain and suffering at all. That 51 percent line is exactly why an insurer’s software is so eager to push your number above it.
Here is the part that protects you. Fault is decided by the people in the case, ultimately a jury if it goes that far, based on all the evidence. It is not decided by a vendor’s algorithm. Your account, independent witnesses, the physical damage to the vehicles, the scene, and a qualified human reconstruction can all rebut a software score. No-fault personal injury protection benefits for your own medical care and wage loss are payable without regard to fault under MCL 500.3105, subject to the coverage limits in your own policy, so an AI fault score aimed at the other driver does not touch those benefits at all.
Video Is Not Automatically Allowed as Evidence
Before any video or AI reconstruction can be used against you in court, it has to clear basic rules of evidence. A video must be authenticated under MRE 901, meaning someone has to show it truly is what it claims to be, an accurate recording of the event, not edited, mislabeled, or pulled from the wrong time or place. Some records can be self-authenticating under MRE 902, but a contested clip and any analysis built on it can be challenged. This matters more than ever, because video can now be altered or even generated by AI. If a clip is offered against you, your attorney can demand the original file, its source, and its data, and can question whether it has been manipulated.
The reconstruction layered on top faces a second hurdle. An expert opinion, including an AI-assisted analysis of speed or fault, must satisfy MRE 702, which Michigan strengthened effective May 1, 2024 to match the stricter federal standard. The party offering it must show it is more likely than not that the opinion rests on sufficient facts and data, comes from reliable methods, and applies those methods reliably to your crash. A judge can keep an unreliable, black-box video analysis away from the jury entirely.
AI Fault Score Versus the Real Record
The table below compares an insurer’s AI video conclusion with the evidence that actually decides fault.
| Question | AI video score | The real record |
|---|---|---|
| What is it based on? | A few seconds of footage and software assumptions. | Witnesses, physical damage, the scene, and your account. |
| Does it know the conditions? | Usually not, such as weather, signals, or what happened off-camera. | Built from the full context of the crash. |
| Who decides fault? | The insurer presents it as decided. | A jury, weighing all the evidence under MCL 600.2959. |
| Can it be challenged? | Must clear MRE 901 and MRE 702 to be used. | Tested in the open through cross-examination. |
A confident graphic is not the same as proof, and that distance is where a good lawyer goes to work.
What To Do If Video Is Being Used Against You
Move quickly, because footage disappears. Doorbell and security video is often overwritten within days, so the clips that help you can vanish if no one preserves them. Write down what you remember while it is fresh, and collect the names of any witnesses. Do not assume the insurer’s version of a video is complete or accurate, and be careful about giving a recorded statement that the insurer can pair with its software. Most important, if an insurer is blaming you based on an AI analysis, have the claim reviewed before that score hardens into a denial. The deadline for most injury lawsuits is the three-year limit in MCL 600.5805(2), and preserving evidence cannot wait that long.
Frequently Asked Questions
The insurer says its software found me mostly at fault. Is that final?
No. A software fault score is an argument, not a ruling. Fault in Michigan is decided on all the evidence, ultimately by a jury under MCL 600.2959, and your account, witnesses, and the physical evidence can rebut a video analysis. You do not have to accept the algorithm’s number.
Why does the 51 percent figure matter so much?
Under MCL 600.2959, your damages are reduced by your share of fault, and if you are found more than 50 percent at fault you cannot recover noneconomic damages such as pain and suffering. That line is why insurers push your fault number above it, and why fighting an inflated score is worth it.
Can the other side just play any video they have?
Not automatically. A video must be authenticated under MRE 901 as a true and accurate recording, and any AI reconstruction built on it must satisfy the reliability standard in MRE 702. Your attorney can demand the original file and challenge a clip that was edited, mislabeled, or analyzed by black-box software.
Does an AI fault score affect my no-fault medical benefits?
Generally no. Personal injury protection benefits for your own medical care and wage loss are payable through the no-fault system without regard to fault, subject to your own policy’s coverage limits. A fault score is aimed at a third-party claim against the other driver, not at your own PIP benefits.
What should I do to protect video evidence that helps me?
Act fast. Doorbell and security footage is often erased within days. Identify nearby cameras, ask that the footage be preserved, write down what you remember, and gather witness names. A lawyer can send preservation requests quickly so the evidence that supports you is not lost.
Does it cost anything to have a lawyer review the video and the fault claim?
No. A consultation with our office is free, and we work on contingency, which means no fee unless we recover for you. If an AI video analysis is being used to blame you, it costs nothing to have your case reviewed.
Is an insurer using AI crash video to pin the blame on you? Talk to a real attorney, free.
Attorney Manny Chahal will move to preserve the footage, challenge a black-box fault score under Michigan’s evidence rules, and fight to keep your recovery whole. Free statewide consultation. No fee unless we recover. Call 1-844-MCHAHAL.
Call 1-844-624-2425