A car-accident file may contain reports, photographs, video, vehicle records, messages, witness accounts, medical records, bills, wage documents, policies, and calculations. The useful question is not how many items exist, but which disputed proposition each item may help evaluate and what foundation or limitation accompanies it.

An evidence matrix should distinguish what a source tends to show, who can identify or explain it, and what remains disputed; collecting many documents does not by itself establish a claim element.

Define the proposition before listing evidence

  • Claim, defense, or issue; specific factual proposition; legal element or evidentiary purpose; and person carrying the burden
  • Supporting source, conflicting source, neutral source, missing source, and alternative explanation
  • Witness or custodian, personal-knowledge basis, authentication path, hearsay question, original-record issue, and privilege or protection question
  • Date, version, native format, metadata, source location, custody history, preservation status, and production or disclosure status
  • Confidence, unresolved predicate, follow-up action, assigned person, deadline, and review date

Use relevance as the first screen

North Carolina Rule of Evidence 401 defines relevant evidence by its tendency to make a consequential fact more or less probable. State the consequential fact and the inferential step. A photograph of damage, for example, may help evaluate vehicle condition but does not automatically establish speed, fault, medical causation, or the value of an injury claim.

Identify who has personal knowledge

Rule 602 addresses a witness’s personal knowledge. For each proposed witness, record what the person personally perceived, when and where, the opportunity to observe, memory limits, later communications, documents reviewed, and matters learned from someone else. Keep an eyewitness account separate from an opinion, report summary, or repeated statement.

Plan authentication for every exhibit

Rule 901 addresses authentication or identification through evidence sufficient to support a finding that an item is what its proponent claims. Record who created, captured, kept, received, exported, or recognizes the item; the system or process involved; date and time; completeness; changes; metadata; custody; and any comparison or distinctive characteristic.

Create separate sections for the core disputes

  • Event and responsibility: road and traffic conditions, vehicle movement, conduct, visibility, signals, sequence, contact, ownership, employment, agency, standards asserted, and alternative causes
  • Medical causation: baseline, event, symptom onset, examination, diagnosis, treatment, response, prior conditions, later events, qualified opinions, and competing explanations
  • Loss: medical expenses, wages and earning effects, property, transportation, household assistance, function, benefits, liens, repayments, and source calculations
  • Coverage and procedure: policies, insured identity, notice, reservations and denials, claim communications, pleadings, service, discovery, orders, and deadlines

Do not hide contradictions

Place inconsistent accounts, dates, measurements, codes, diagnoses, invoices, and policy positions in the same issue row. Explain whether the difference may reflect a correction, copied-forward text, different vantage point, incomplete export, later information, altered condition, or genuine dispute. Deleting an unfavorable source makes the matrix less useful and can create an inaccurate file.

Treat summaries as working tools

A timeline, chart, diagram, transcript excerpt, medical chronology, bill ledger, or damages calculation should link back to the complete source and disclose its method. A summary can help organize review, but it does not cure missing personal knowledge, authentication, hearsay, original-record, qualification, relevance, or other foundation questions.

Use the matrix to locate missing proof

Rows with no source, only circular sources, an unavailable custodian, a missing predicate, or an unresolved alternative explanation should be marked for investigation or legal analysis. The next task may be a record request, interview, inspection, policy request, medical review, calculation correction, discovery request, or decision that the proposition cannot currently be supported.

The related record-based car-accident timeline guide explains how to sequence source events without relying on memory or treating the chronology as proof.

Rosensteel Fleishman Car Accident & Injury Lawyers provides information about Charlotte car-accident claims requiring evidence review. The matrix should show both the support and the limits of every proposed item.

Sources