Appellants were not entitled to sanctions or a jury instruction regarding spoliation of evidence of an automatic door in appellees' store that allegedly closed on appellant. Judgment affirmed.
April 24, 2016 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
Personal Injury • Negligence • Admission of Malfunction • Failure to Deny Admission • Spoliation of Evidence • Prohibition of Expert Testimony
Vitez v. Marmaxx Operating Corp., PICS Case No. 16-0497 (Pa. Super. April 14, 2016) (memorandum) Bowes, J. (22 pages).
Appellants were not entitled to sanctions or a jury instruction regarding spoliation of evidence of an automatic door in appellees’ store that allegedly closed on appellant. Judgment affirmed.
Presented by BigVoodoo
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
This conference aims to help insurers and litigators better manage complex claims and litigation.
Recognizing innovation in the legal technology sector for working on precedent-setting, game-changing projects and initiatives.
McManimon, Scotland & Baumann, LLC is seeking talented and motivated associate attorneys for several positions. Candidates must be admi...
Lower Manhattan firm seeks a litigator with at least 2-4 years of experience in all aspects of commercial litigation (i.e., depositions and ...
A prestigious matrimonial law firm in Garden City is seeking a skilled Associate Attorney with 5 to 7 years of experience in family law. The...
