The court ruled in this fashion even though there
was no evidence of how long the spill had been present before the Plaintiff
came along and fell. The court noted
that issues of fact were raised by the fact that the defendant’s maintenance
records for the date in question were missing.
Moreover, as there was therefore an open question
in the matter about spoliation relative to the missing maintenance records, and
whether an adverse inference in favor of the Plaintiff's case might be proper, summary
judgment was found to be precluded on the issue of constructive knowledge. The court additionally noted that there was
no requirement that spoliation be resolved before summary judgment to be
applicable.
Anyone wishing to review this Rodriguez decision may click this LINK.
I send thanks to Attorney James Beck of the Philadelphia office of Reed Smith for bringing this case to my attention. I highly recommend that you check out Attorney Beck's award-winning and nationally recognized blog, the Drug and Device Law Blog, which can be accessed at this LINK.
In its recent decision in the case of Harrell v. Pathmark, 2015 U.S. Dist. Lexis
23154 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 26, 2015 Pratter, J.), the Eastern District Federal Court
of Pennsylvania granted summary judgment
in a slip and fall case due to a Plaintiff's inability to prove actual or
constructive notice of the Defendant of an allegedly dangerous condition.
In so ruling, the court rejected the Plaintiff's spoliation claim in a case where the
store routinely saved over its surveillance tapes.
The court noted that, in this matter, evidence
was presented that the store's surveillance camera tapes of the area were
routinely reused. Moreover, there was no
evidence that the surveillance camera(s) at issue captured the Plaintiff’s
fall. The record also established that
the cameras may not even have been pointed in the necessary direction.
As such, the court ruled that, under
circumstances presented in this case no adverse inference in favor of the Plaintiff
from an alleged spoliation of evidence arises if the evidence was lost,
accidentally destroyed, or where the failure to produce it is otherwise
properly accounted for -- in this case, the court noted that re-recording of
videotapes in the usual course of business is not bad faith. In this regard, the court also pointed out
that a spoliation sanction requires more than proof of mere negligence.
The court also notably ruled that the mere fact
that a fall in a store does not mean
that litigation is imminent or otherwise serve to put the store on notice to
save the video tapes. In this case, the
Plaintiff did not put defendant on notice of suit at or around the time of her
fall.
Anyone wishing to review this decision may click
this LINK.
I send thanks to Attorney James Beck of the Philadelphia office of Reed Smith for bringing this case to my attention. I highly recommend that you check out Attorney Beck's award-winning and nationally recognized blog, the Drug and Device Law Blog, which can be accessed at this LINK.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.