Two drivers can describe the same collision differently without either account being enough to resolve fault. If each says the light was green, the useful question is what can test those accounts: a recording, a witness who saw the signal, or physical evidence that fits one sequence better than the other.
A Louisiana car accident claim needs that factual work as well as a legal explanation of why the conduct caused a compensable injury. A damaged car establishes that an impact occurred. It does not, by itself, establish who acted negligently or which losses followed from that negligence.
What the evidence must establish
Civil Code article 2315 is the foundation for liability based on fault. In Lemann v. Essen Lane Daiquiris, the Louisiana Supreme Court described five parts of the negligence inquiry: a duty, a breach of that duty, factual causation, legal causation or scope of protection, and actual damages.
For a crash claim, those parts require more than identifying a traffic mistake. The evidence must connect the alleged mistake to the collision and injury, and the harm must fall within the protection of the applicable duty. The analysis also needs proof of the losses being claimed. A violation that had no causal relationship to the injury does not finish that inquiry.
Consider a disputed lane change. The investigation may need to establish where both vehicles were, when either moved, what each driver could see, and whether there was time to respond. Medical and employment records address different questions: which injuries the collision caused and how those injuries affected treatment needs or earnings. Keeping those questions separate makes gaps in the proof easier to identify.
Match each record to a disputed fact
Photographs may show damage locations, road markings, sight obstructions, debris, or conditions after the collision. Preserve the original files and note who took them and when. A close-up of a dent may be useful, but it usually cannot establish the entire movement of both vehicles before impact.
Ask witnesses what they actually observed. Someone who heard the impact and then turned around may describe the aftermath accurately without knowing which driver entered the intersection first. Record contact information and the distinction between firsthand observations and later assumptions; do not coach a witness toward the account you hope to prove.
Identify nearby cameras promptly. A camera’s presence does not establish that it recorded the crash, retained footage, or belonged to someone who can freely release it. Access to recordings, phone records, and vehicle data may require consent or legal process. Do not enter private property or access another person’s device to obtain evidence.
NHTSA explains that an event data recorder may capture technical information about vehicle movement, driver inputs, or restraint operation around an impact. It is not a video of the collision. A qualified examination must account for the particular vehicle, available data, and limits of the recorded event.
Use the crash report as an investigative starting point
The report can identify drivers, witnesses, vehicles, and the investigating agency. Compare its narrative with photographs and the underlying accounts. If it contains a factual error, identify the error and supporting information accurately rather than assuming the report must be accepted unchanged.
Its official appearance does not make every statement admissible in court. Code of Evidence article 803(8) excludes police investigative reports from the public-records hearsay exception, subject to specific legislative provisions. Testimony, separately admissible records, and other evidence may be needed to prove facts mentioned in the report. An officer’s conclusion also does not replace the court’s assessment of liability.
Account for each person’s contribution
Under the general negligence rule in amended Civil Code article 2323, an injured person assigned 51 percent or more negligence cannot recover damages; below that threshold, damages are reduced proportionately. Act 15 of 2025 took effect January 1, 2026. Earlier accidents require the prior-law analysis under the prospective-application principle in article 6; filing suit later does not itself move an earlier crash into the new system.
Article 2323 also addresses contributing nonparties and preserves a separate rule for harm caused partly by the injured person’s negligence and partly by an intentional tortfeasor. Fault attributed to another person does not automatically become your percentage. Our comparative-fault explanation covers the calculation and its qualifications.
If an insurer has already assigned a percentage, ask which conduct and evidence support it. The article on disputing an insurer’s fault assessment addresses that next step. A disagreement over an offer is different from the broader task of assembling admissible proof.
Our Baton Rouge car accident practice can review the competing accounts and identify which missing records could meaningfully resolve them. Bring the report, available photographs, witness information, and the insurer’s written explanation if you have them. You do not need to obtain every record before discussing the claim.
Sources checked: September 29, 2026. Last reviewed: September 28, 2026.