Court Says ShopRite's Deletion of Video Following Slip-and-Fall Was Spoliation
A three-judge appeals panel ordered a new trial for plaintiff Harriet Marshall because the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas judge who oversaw her first trial failed to give the jury an adverse inference instruction based on defendant ShopRite's spoliation of evidence.
March 28, 2019 at 01:11 PM
4 minute read
A grocery store that deleted surveillance footage of all but about 37 minutes before and 20 minutes after a slip-and-fall spoliated evidence because by that time it had already received a letter from plaintiffs counsel requesting footage of a significantly longer time span, the Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled.
In Marshall v. Brown's IA, a three-judge appeals panel ordered a new trial for plaintiff Harriet Marshall because the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas judge who oversaw her first trial failed to give the jury an adverse inference instruction based on defendant ShopRite's spoliation of evidence.
According to the panel's March 27 published opinion, Marshall slipped on water and fell in the produce aisle of the Island Avenue ShopRite in Philadelphia, aggravating a pre-existing injury to her hip and back. About two weeks later, ShopRite received a letter from Marshall's attorney requesting footage of the six hours before and the three hours after Marshall's fall.
The letter, according to the opinion, warned, “'If any of the above evidence exists, and you fail to maintain same until the disposition of this claim, it will be assumed that you have intentionally destroyed and/or disposed of evidence. Please be advised that you are not permitted, and are in no position, to decide what evidence plaintiff would like to review for this case. Accordingly, discarding any of the above evidence will lead to an adverse inference against you in this matter.'”
ShopRite, however, preserved only about 37 minutes before and 20 minutes after Marshall's fall, the court said.
The case proceeded to a trial and a jury found in favor of the defense. Marshall appealed, arguing that she was prejudiced by the trial court's refusal to give a spoliation instruction to the jury.
The appeals panel, led by Judge Mary Jane Bowes, agreed, finding that the letter from Marshall's attorney had “placed ShopRite on notice to preserve the video surveillance prior to and after the fall as it was arguably relevant to impending litigation” and that ShopRite had ”consciously decided to preserve only a fraction of the video requested because, as a 'rule of thumb,' it usually retained only 20 minutes of video prior to a fall, and 20 minutes after.”
“ShopRite's conduct herein constituted spoliation,” Bowes said. “We agree with Ms. Marshall that the video surveillance tape depicting the events in the several hours prior to her fall was relevant for showing far more than the offending substance on the floor. Additional probative value lay in demonstrating what steps, if any, ShopRite and its employees took to make the premises reasonably safe for business visitors such as Ms. Marshall in the hours leading up to the fall. Arguably, such evidence was relevant to showing knowledge, constructive notice, and a lack of care for the safety of invitees.”
Bowes was joined by Judges Victor Stabile and Maria McLaughlin.
The appeals panel also took issue with the trial court's determination that ShopRite did not spoliate evidence because it did not act in bad faith.
“Spoliation may be negligent, reckless, or intentional; a party's good or bad faith in the destruction of potentially relevant evidence goes to the type of sanction that should be imposed, not whether a sanction is warranted,” Bowes said, adding, “Ms. Marshall asked the court for the least severe spoliation sanction, an adverse inference instruction. On the facts herein, it was warranted, and the court abused its discretion in refusing the charge.”
Counsel for Marshall, Marc Greenfield of Spear, Greenfield, Richman Weitz & Taggart in Philadelphia, could not be reached for comment.
Thomas Bradley of McBreen & Kopko in Philadelphia represented Brown's IA, which owns the Island Avenue ShopRite. He also could not be reached for comment.
(Copies of the 15-page opinion in Marshall v. Brown's IA LLC, PICS No. 19-03883, are available at http://at.law.com/PICS.)
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPittsburgh Judge Rules Loan Company's Online Arbitration Agreement Unenforceable
3 minute readPhila. Jury Awards $15M to Woman Who Slipped on Apartment Building Stairs
4 minute readPa. Hospital Agrees to $16M Settlement Following High Schooler's Improper Discharge
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250