Insurance companies and defense lawyers may wave this word around to make a crash analysis sound more precise than it really is. They may claim a computer-generated scene proves a person "could not have been hit that way," was speeding, or had enough time to avoid impact. That can be misleading when the underlying photos are incomplete, distorted, taken from bad angles, or fed into shaky assumptions.

Photogrammetry is the process of using photographs or video to measure distances, angles, speeds, and positions in the real world. In accident cases, experts use it to turn images of a crash scene, vehicle damage, skid marks, road features, or injuries into scaled measurements or 3D models. When done carefully, it can support accident reconstruction by helping estimate where people and vehicles were and how an event unfolded. When done poorly, it can dress up guesswork as science.

For an injury claim, photogrammetry can affect liability, causation, and the value of damages. A defense expert may use it to challenge whether an impact happened the way you reported or whether the force was enough to cause injury. On the other hand, strong image-based analysis can back up medical findings, scene evidence, and witness accounts. The key questions are who performed it, what images were used, what assumptions were made, and whether the result matches the physical evidence - not just a polished animation.