Hodges, Judge. This case involves negligence and nuisance claims brought by Gregory Theodore Perkins against the City of Atlanta. Perkins alleged he was injured when he stepped on a City water meter lid that flipped into the water meter box, causing him to fall. A jury awarded nearly $2.4 million to Perkins. In Case Number A24A0695, the City appeals the trial court’s imposition of spoliation sanctions and the admission of certain evidence. In Case Number A24A0696, Perkins appeals the trial court’s decision granting the City’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and overturning the jury’s award of OCGA § 13-6-11 attorney fees to him. For the reasons that follow, we affirm in both cases. The record shows that the City owns and maintains a complex water system, containing approximately 160,000 water meters, to provide water service to City residents. Meters are underground boxes that house water-usage measuring components and are usually covered by an oval or round metal lid. In 2005 or 2006, the City began modernizing the water meter system and contracted with private companies, including K&V Meter Automation, LLC (“K&V”), to update the system to an automated reader and fit the boxes with new or retrofitted lids to assist in the automated meter reading. During the modernization, various box sizes were used that required different types of lids. One lid measured 18 1/8 inches by 9 7/8 inches (“the smaller-sized lid”) while another measured 19 1/4 inches by 9 1/4 inches (“the larger-sized lid”). The lids also varied in how they secured to the boxes: lids had zero, two, or four prongs, and some of the lids had locking mechanisms while others did not. Jonathan Webb, an area supervisor for the City, deposed that the City instructed Watershed Department employees to replace the existing lids with better-fitting lids, especially if the employee observed an ill-fitting lid. Natalie Knight, a City representative designated under OCGA § 9-11-30 (b) (6), and Lance Hollis, a senior City inspector, confirmed this directive. The specific instruction was to follow the specifications requiring lids to fit securely without rocking and to replace lids that did not properly fit. Lid replacement was not always documented, but the City replaced “[p]robably a thousand” ill-fitting lids. The City was well aware that meter lid fit was a problem in the City and sent postcards to all its customers urging them to report meter lid issues, which customers did, but the City knew there were still thousands of lids that did not fit the boxes correctly. In fact, in 2007, the City Auditor’s Office estimated that out of a sample size of 138 of the 12,377 small meters installed, 41 percent “had a lid that didn’t fit” and 72 percent “had an unlock[ed] lid[.]” “ Many of the meter sites . . . observed had noticeable gaps between the meter box and lid.” The Auditor’s Office determined that meter lids that did not fit meter boxes could cause a potentially hazardous condition and recommended that the City perform periodic inspections. The City auditor informed the City that relying on customer reports regarding ill-fitting lids was inadequate and recommended that the City devise a maintenance plan to identify the ill-fitting lids and correct them. Gwendolyn Burns, a City claims advisor and 30 (b) (6) representative, testified that the City was well aware that a lid that did not fit the water meter box would have a natural tendency to flip when someone stepped on it. She deposed that the City had general knowledge that there was a lid problem and that the lids did not always fit the meter boxes that K&V installed. In 2012, Burns wrote: “Although there is no record notice to meter problems at the subject location [where Perkins fell], the City was well aware that it had several thousand meters that were improperly covered with the incorrect meter lid size creating hazardous meter conditions.” Hollis likewise testified that lids that were too small for the meter box could flip if stepped on. Angelena Kelly, a former City claims investigator, deposed that she investigated numerous claims of injuries allegedly received by individuals after “stepping onto a defective water meter [or ill-fitting lid] that was installed by K&V Automation” prior to Perkins’ accident. Kelly found “liability probable due to lid issue with K&V” on most occasions. On September 3, 2011, Perkins was driving to visit family when he encountered a fallen tree limb in the road. He stopped and dragged the tree branch onto the residential property at 1814 Dodson Drive in Atlanta. While moving the branch, Perkins walked backwards, glancing back and watching for the curb as he backed up. Perkins claims he stepped on a water meter and the lid “kind of slipped away” under his weight, allegedly causing him to fall into the water meter pit and tearing his left knee quadricep tendon. It is undisputed that this water meter and lid was part of the City’s waterworks system. Perkins’ daughter took photographs of the site later that day. Immediately following the incident, Perkins spoke with Warren Hayes, the City claims investigator subsequently assigned to his claim, who explained the claims procedure to him. On September 9, 2011, six days after the incident, Perkins filed a claim report with the City. The claim report noted that Perkins stopped to remove a limb which was blocking the street and, as he moved the limb, he stepped on a water meter cover located at 1814 Dodson Drive in Atlanta, fell to the ground, and heard something pop in his leg. The City opened an investigation, informing Perkins of this action in a letter dated September 28, 2011.[1] According to Hayes, Perkins “was very persistent” and called “possibly every other day, definitely more than twice a week.” On November 7 or 8, 2011, Webb visited the property, took photographs of the water meter and lid, and stepped on the lid to assess its safety. He did not lift the lid off the box or remove the lid. Webb was not told that someone had been injured while walking on the water meter; he believed he was looking for “the lid to be missing when they sent [him] out there.” Webb spent approximately five or ten minutes at the site and determined that the lid was the correct size and securely fit the meter box. Webb purportedly forwarded his photographs to Hayes, but Hayes denied receiving any photographs, and the City could not locate the photographs taken by Webb. Less than two months later, someone else took a picture of the water meter lid at 1814 Dodson Drive. Webb was shown the picture during his deposition. Webb could not recall what size lid was on the water meter when he inspected it, but deposed that the picture taken two months after his investigation did not appear to depict the same lid that he inspected. When shown two pictures of lids, Webb stated that he believed one picture depicted an exemplar of “the original lid that was probably on that box[,]” but then stated that he could not “ be sure of that, which lid[,]” and he admitted that the photographed lid found on the water meter box two months after his inspection was a different lid. He surmised that it was “ probable” that someone switched the lid on the water meter box after his inspection. In 2013, Perkins hired an attorney and his attorney and an expert examined the lid at 1814 Dodson Drive. It was determined that the smaller-sized lid was on the water meter box at that time. The expert noted that the smaller-sized lid covering the water meter box had the possibility of flipping or tipping into the box when he stepped on it. Perkins subsequently filed a complaint in Fulton County State Court, alleging negligence, nuisance, and vicarious liability against the City. In short, the complaint asserted that Perkins suffered injuries after stepping on a water meter lid that was too small for the meter box. In April 2014, Brian Spencer, another city inspector, visited the property and photographed the lid. Spencer reported that the lid was locked and fit the meter box, but he replaced it with a new lid as instructed by his supervisor. He discovered “lots of debris in the box” and a broken “piece of lid” inside the meter box. Spencer brought the lid he replaced and the broken piece to the City Watershed Management facility, and it was then transferred and stored with the legal department. The lid purportedly stored at the legal department was the smaller-sized lid. It is undisputed that the City could not locate the photographs Spencer took. In addition, Wole Ralph, a City 30 (b) (6) representative, deposed that the City was unable to locate the lid that Spencer removed. Ralph stated in his deposition: “We don’t have that. We have lids of similar size and dimension — of the same size and dimension. We don’t have that actual lid.” Ralph did not know what happened to the actual lid Spencer removed but assumed it had been lost. When asked, “And it is the position of the City of Atlanta today that the lid is lost?” Ralph responded, “That the lid — yes, the lid is not accessible. . . . [R]ight now, we are not able to put our hands on the lid.” The City brought two lids to the deposition and claimed one of the lids was the same type as the lid Spencer removed from the water meter at issue in 2014. Ralph, however, conceded that he did not know whether the lid recovered in 2014 was the same lid present at the time of Perkins’ accident, and the City conceded in its response to Perkins’ spoliation motion that although Perkins “was operating under the assumption . . . that the Brian Spencer lid is the same lid on which [he] fell[,] . . . [t]he City has not adopted this assumption. . . . The City still cannot take the position that the Brian Spencer lid is without a doubt the original lid on which [Perkins] fell.” Ralph further deposed that some City inspectors would replace water meter lids without a work order and without informing the City. In 2019, Perkins filed a motion for spoliation of evidence and asked for sanctions against the City. He argued that the City lost or destroyed: (i) the meter lid on which Perkins stepped on September 3, 2011; (ii) photographs Webb took in November 2011; and (iii) photographs Spencer took in April 2014. Perkins asserted that the City had a duty to preserve the lid and photographs, and the loss or destruction of this evidence prejudiced his case. The City opposed the motion, claiming that Perkins did not need the lid to prove his claims and was not prejudiced by the lack of photographs since he had other pre-suit photographs. The trial court issued a 37-page order granting Perkins’ spoliation motion. Specifically, the trial court found that the City had a duty to preserve the water meter lid and photographs: Once the City became aware of Plaintiff’s claim and began to investigate, it had a duty to preserve its photographs of the meter lid and the way it fit or did not fit on the meter box, as well as the actual water meter lid, and should have taken all precautions to obtain, maintain, and then preserve the meter lid itself as well as any and all photographs of the meter lid. The court then weighed a number of factors, including the prejudice suffered by Perkins as a result of the City’s spoliation of the original water meter lid because Perkins could not counter evidence that the lid was safe: The opportunity for testing by Plaintiff’s experts has been lost forever[, and a]s a result, any examination, analysis, and testing on any exemplar meter lids that have now been provided simply will not bear the same results as those borne from any testing, examination, and analysis of the September 2011 meter lid and would create insufficient and misleading facts for the jury. Any jury verdict would be based on conjecture and guesswork. The trial court further found that Perkins was prejudiced by the loss of the City inspectors’ photographs because Perkins could have found defects in the lid based on those photographs and the inspectors’ reports do not give full, detailed summaries of the inspections. The trial court implemented the following sanctions: [(i) t]he City will be precluded from calling any witnesses to present testimony and/or evidence that the small lid was fine, had no problems, fit securely, and/or was able to be locked in, or presenting any evidence that would tend to refute the theory that it was negligent in 1) maintaining the meter lid and box and 2) safely and securely covering the water meter box in question. The City, however, will be allowed to defend on the issues of comparative fault, causation, and damages. . . . [(ii) t]he jury will be instructed that the small water meter lid covered the meter box on September 3, 2011. The jury will also be instructed that the water meter lid did not fit properly on the meter box, and when Plaintiff stepped on the lid, it flipped, caused him to fall, and allegedly resulted in his injuries. . . . [(iii)] since the Inspectors’ photographs are either lost or destroyed and Plaintiff’s effective crossexamination of Inspector Spencer would be greatly hampered by the absence of the photographs taken by him, Inspector Spencer is precluded from testifying for any and all purposes. The court also excluded introduction into evidence of a lid similar to the one Spencer fell on in 2014. In 2022, the City filed a number of motions in limine, including motions to exclude evidence or arguments regarding: (i) other civil lawsuits, claims, or administrative proceedings against the City; (ii) other water meter claim injuries that allegedly occurred because of ill-fitting water meter lids; and (iii) other lawsuits against the City related to allegedly ill-fitting water meter lids. The City also sought to exclude any reference to the facts and circumstances surrounding the trial court’s spoliation ruling. Following a hearing, the trial court granted in part and denied in part the City’s motions. While the court determined that no mention of spoliation was warranted, the court allowed Perkins to present evidence that there were “thousand[s] of instances that [the City] knew about” regarding alleged problems with other water meter lids to demonstrate comparative fault and show that the City had notice and knowledge of ill-fitting lids. A jury trial was held in March of 2022. The following stipulation was read to the jury based on the spoliation and motion in limine orders: The parties have stipulated that the small water meter lid, 18 by one-eighth inches long by nine and seven-eighth inches wide, was similar to the lid that was on the meter box when plaintiff was allegedly injured. The jury will be instructed that the small water meter lid covered the meter box on September 3rd, 2011. The jury is being instructed that the water meter lid did not fit properly on the meter box, and when plaintiff stepped on the lid, it flipped, caused him to fall, and allegedly resulted in the injuries he’s claiming today. The City did not object to the reading of this stipulation or the trial court’s jury instructions containing a similar stipulation. The jury returned a verdict in Perkins’ favor, awarding $2,361,700 in damages for negligence and nuisance and $944,680 in attorney fees, and the trial court issued a final judgment based on those amounts. The City subsequently filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, alternatively, motion for new trial, arguing, in part, that Perkins was not entitled to attorney fees under OCGA § 13-6-11. The trial court granted that portion of the motion, overturning the attorney fees awarded because Perkins did not plead such fees in his complaint or amended complaint, but denied the remainder of the motion.[2] These appeals followed. Case No. A24A0695 In this appeal, the City argues that the trial court abused its discretion in concluding that Perkins proved the City lost or destroyed the lid and imposing a draconian spoliation sanction. The City further argues that the trial court erred in admitting evidence at trial of alleged problems regarding other water meter lids and other water meters. We find no merit in either argument. 1. We turn first to the City’s argument regarding the trial court’s finding of spoliation and its imposition of sanctions. “Spoliation refers to the destruction or failure to preserve evidence that is relevant to contemplated or pending litigation. Such conduct may create the rebuttable presumption that the evidence would have been harmful to the spoliator.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) United Parcel Svc. of America v. Whitlock, 366 Ga. App. 542, 554 (2) (a) (883 SE2d 556) (2023). To prove that spoliation has occurred, the moving party must establish that the evidence in question was “key” or “necessary” to the litigation. Bridgestone/Firestone North American Tire v. Campbell, 258 Ga. App. 767, 768 (574 SE2d 923) (2002). The moving party must also demonstrate that the non-moving party had control of the evidence and was under a duty to preserve the evidence at issue. Phillips v. Harmon, 297 Ga. 386, 394, 396 (II) (774 SE2d 596) (2015). The duty to preserve relevant evidence arises when litigation becomes “reasonably foreseeable” to the nonmoving party, such as when a plaintiff provides notice of a claim. Id. at 396-397 (II). “A trial court has wide discretion in adjudicating spoliation issues, and such discretion will not be disturbed absent abuse.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Whitlock, 366 Ga. App. at 554 (2) (a); see also AMLI Residential Properties v. Ga. Power Co., 293 Ga. App. 358 (667 SE2d 150) (2008) (noting that this Court “will not disturb a trial court’s imposition of sanctions for evidence spoliation unless the court abused its discretion”) (citation and punctuation omitted). Here, the City does not assert that the water meter lid on which Perkins fell on September 3, 2011 was not relevant, key, or necessary to the litigation. Indeed, it is critical to the litigation which alleges that the lid did not fit properly and this improper fit caused Perkins’ injuries. In addition, the City does not argue that the water meter and lid were not in its control. Indeed, it is undisputed that the water meter and lid at 1814 Dodson Drive were a part of the City’s water system. Moreover, the City does not argue that litigation was not reasonably foreseeable at the time the relevant lid was lost or destroyed. In fact, the record shows that immediately following his accident, Perkins spoke with a City claims investigator about the incident, and six days later Perkins submitted a claim regarding the incident. He was then very persistent about his claim, calling nearly every other day. Clearly, the City had notice that litigation was reasonably foreseeable at that point and had a duty to preserve relevant evidence, including the water meter lid in place at the time of Perkins’ fall, yet it failed to preserve the lid at that time. See Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. Koch, 303 Ga. 336, 341-342 (2) (c) (812 SE2d 256) (2018) (concluding that a party’s duty to preserve relevant evidence in its control arises when that party actually anticipates or reasonably should anticipate litigation). Instead, the City inexplicably argues — despite a wealth of evidence to the contrary — that it did not lose or destroy the relevant water meter lid. This argument lacks merit. (a) The City first asserts that the trial court failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to it, as the nonmoving party, in deciding that the City lost or destroyed the lid present during Perkins’ accident. We find no error in the standard of review used by the trial court or the court’s decision using that standard of review. In its reply brief, the City cites to a recent opinion discussing the applicable standard of review when a trial court considers a spoliation motion without holding an evidentiary hearing: Golden Pantry Food Stores v. Bradley, 371 Ga. App. 374 (899 SE2d 724) (2024). In that case, we reiterated that, when deciding a pre-trial motion for spoliation sanctions without an evidentiary hearing to determine the credibility of witnesses, a trial court must review the motion under the standard applicable to a motion for summary judgment: The party opposing the motion is entitled to have the evidence in the record viewed in the light most favorable to it and to have all reasonable inferences from the evidence drawn in its favor. Id. at 375. We vacated the trial court’s orders granting the motions for spoliation after noting that “the trial court d[id] not state the standard of review it employed” and finding that the court failed to employ the proper standard of review. Id. at 375-376. In this case, the trial court expressly stated the standard of review it applied in its extremely thorough, 37-page order on the spoliation motion: The relevant facts here must be viewed favorably to the City, as the party opposing the spoliation motion. Where, as here, a party files a pretrial motion for spoliation sanctions and the trial court considers matters outside of the pleadings, but does not hold an evidentiary hearing, the motion is properly reviewed under the standard applicable to a motion for summary judgment, and as the party opposing the motion, the nonmovant is entitled to have the evidence in the record viewed in the light most favorable to it and to have all reasonable inferences from the evidence drawn in its favor. The Court has applied this standard to the facts of this case[.] (Citations and punctuation omitted.) As stated above, this is the appropriate standard of review when the trial court considers a spoliation motion without holding an evidentiary hearing. Although the parties in this case dispute whether the trial court held an evidentiary hearing on the spoliation motion,[3] we find that, pretermitting whether an evidentiary hearing was held, the City’s arguments fail even using the more lenient summary judgment standard of review articulated by the trial court.[4] Turning to the trial court’s application of the summary judgment standard, the City argues on appeal that the court made erroneous findings and “simply ignored evidence showing the lid likely remained the same.” It further argues that the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the City, “demonstrates the City did not lose or destroy the lid” because the evidence infers that no City employee changed the water meter lid at issue and the lid Spencer recovered in 2014 was the same smaller-sized lid present when Perkins allegedly injured himself in 2011. We disagree with the City’s arguments for a number of reasons. First, although the City argues that the lid Spencer removed in 2014 likely remained the same as the one on the water meter at the time of Perkins’ fall in 2011, the City’s own admissions counter this argument. The City admitted that it could not “conclusively say which of . . . two lids was in place” at the time of Perkins’ accident. See Versico, Inc. v. Engineered Fabrics Corp., 238 Ga. App. 837, 839 (1) (520 SE2d 505) (1999) (finding that party made admissions in its court pleadings that could not be contradicted by other evidence unless the admissions were withdrawn or amended on formal motion). In fact, the City specifically conceded that it could not take the position that the lid Spencer removed was the original lid on the water meter when Perkins fell. Second, the record is undisputed that the City did not send someone to investigate the water meter lid at issue until nearly two months after Perkins filed his claim, and that investigator thought he was looking for a missing water meter lid. The investigator did not preserve the water meter lid at that time. Neither did he lift the lid off the water meter box during his investigation. Although the investigator deposed that the lid fit securely, he could not recall the size of the lid present during his investigation. The City claimed that the lid on the water meter “remained the Smaller-Sized Lid[,]” but it also admitted that the “ Smaller-Sized Lid left a gap,” and Webb specifically testified that the lid fit securely when he inspected it. Webb further deposed that the lid photographed on the water meter box two months after his investigation was not the same lid he observed on the meter box, leading him to surmise that it was “more probable” that someone switched the lid on the water meter box after his inspection. And City agents testified that replaced water meter lids were not always documented by employees. In addition, years later Spencer visited the site and removed the lid that was present at that time. In so doing, he discovered “lots of debris” and “a piece of [a broken water meter] lid” inside the water meter box.[5] Even construing all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the City, this evidence submitted by the City’s employees and agents counters its argument that the lid likely remained the same. It is undisputed that the City took no steps to ensure that the original water meter lid was preserved, despite knowing that the lid was a critical piece of evidence in a matter where litigation was foreseeable within days of the incident, placing the City under a duty to preserve the relevant evidence. See Koch, 303 Ga. at 336. In fact, by its own admissions the City did not remove the water meter lid at 1814 Dodson Drive until years after Perkins’ fall, and the City both refused to concede that the water meter lid removed by Spencer in 2014 was the lid on the meter at the time of Perkins’ fall and, at the same time, argued that it should receive an inference that the lid removed by Spencer likely remained the same as the one at the time of Perkins’ fall. The competing theories presented by the City highlight the fact that the City — as it conceded — did not definitively possess the actual lid that allegedly caused Perkins’ injuries, evidence which the City was obligated to preserve once litigation was reasonably foreseeable. See Koch, 303 Ga. at 336. In addition, the City does not address in its appellate briefs the trial court’s finding that the lid Spencer removed in 2014 “would not have any probative value[.]” In light of testimony that City employees sometimes remove and replace lids without making an accurate record of such events, it was incumbent upon the City to preserve the lid at issue in this case, at least through photographs, as soon as possible before such vital evidence was lost forever, yet the City failed to timely preserve the water meter lid or the photographs of the lid taken by its investigators. Evidence supports the trial court’s finding that “ [t]he systematic problems exhibited in this case by [the City] in tracking and safeguarding of evidence precluded the adequate preservation of this evidence despite early and frequent notice that litigation would likely ensue.” Regardless of the City’s arguments and the evidence in the record surrounding the authenticity of the lid Spencer removed in 2014, it is undisputed that the City was unable to produce the water meter lid Spencer removed or produce photographs Spencer and Webb took of the water meter lid during their investigations. In fact, one of the City’s 30 (b) (6) witnesses specifically deposed on June 6, 2019 that the City could not locate the lid Spencer removed. It therefore strains credulity that the City argues in this case that it did not lose or destroy the lid. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the City, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the water meter lid and the photographs were lost or destroyed by the City at a time when the City was under an obligation to preserve those items. The trial court did not make credibility determinations, compare Golden Pantry, 371 Ga. App. at 378, but, rather, properly used admissions and testimony by the City’s agents in determining that spoliation occurred. See generally AMLI, 293 Ga. App. at 364 (1) (b) (“Ultimately, it is the actions of AMLI and its agents that establish the factual basis for the trial court’s findings of prejudice and inability to cure.”). The City’s argument regarding the standard of review used by the trial court lacks merit. (b) The City next argues that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing severe spoliation sanctions. It further asserts that these sanctions were inconsistent with the court’s findings. We disagree. Where a party has destroyed or significantly altered evidence that is material to the litigation, the trial court has wide discretion to fashion sanctions on a casebycase basis. For example, the trial court may remedy the prejudice by charging the jury that spoliation of evidence creates the rebuttable presumption that the evidence would have been harmful to the spoliator. The trial court may also be authorized to dismiss the case or to prevent that party’s expert witnesses from testifying in any respect about the evidence. Whether remedies are warranted is a matter for the trial court to decide. (Citations and punctuation omitted.) AMLI, 293 Ga. App. at 361 (1). “This is not an exhaustive list of sanctions a trial court may impose; rather, the trial court has wide latitude to fashion sanctions on a casebycase basis, considering what is appropriate and fair under the circumstances.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Cowan Systems v. Collier, 361 Ga. App. 823, 825-826 (865 SE2d 619) (2021). That said, severe sanctions, “such as an instruction to the jury to presume rebuttably that the evidence was adverse to the spoliating party’s claim or defense, the entry of a default judgment, or the dismissal of the case,” are generally reserved for cases in which a party “lost or destroyed material evidence intentionally in bad faith and thereby prejudiced the opposing party in an uncurable way.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Id. at 826. In exercising its discretion to determine the appropriate penalty for spoliation, the trial court must weigh five factors: (1) whether the party seeking sanctions was prejudiced as a result of the [loss or] destruction of the evidence; (2) whether the prejudice could be cured; (3) the practical importance of the evidence; (4) whether the party who [lost or] destroyed the evidence acted in good or bad faith; and (5) the potential for abuse if expert testimony about the [lost or destroyed] evidence was not excluded. (Citation and punctuation omitted.) AMLI, 293 Ga. App. at 361 (1). “Given the evidence presented, the trial court would have been authorized to dismiss [the City's answer][.]” Campbell, 258 Ga. App. at 771. The trial court, however, declined to do so, limiting the spoliation sanctions to the following: [(i) t]he City will be precluded from calling any witnesses to present testimony and/or evidence that the small lid was fine, had no problems, fit securely, and/or was able to be locked in, or presenting any evidence that would tend to refute the theory that it was negligent in 1) maintaining the meter lid and box and 2) safely and securely covering the water meter box in question. The City, however, will be allowed to defend on the issues of comparative fault, causation, and damages. . . . [(ii) t]he jury will be instructed that the small water meter lid covered the meter box on September 3, 2011. The jury will also be instructed that the water meter lid did not fit properly on the meter box, and when Plaintiff stepped on the lid, it flipped, caused him to fall, and allegedly resulted in his injuries. . . . [(iii)] since the Inspectors’ photographs are either lost or destroyed and Plaintiff’s effective crossexamination of Inspector Spencer would be greatly hampered by the absence of the photographs taken by him, Inspector Spencer is precluded from testifying for any and all purposes. The court also excluded introduction into evidence of a lid similar to the one removed by Spencer. We conclude that the trial court exercised its discretion to craft a viable spoliation remedy, which we will not disturb on appeal. (i) Turning to the first factor — whether the party seeking sanctions was prejudiced as a result of the loss or destruction of the evidence — we agree with
