Debra and Russell Marbury v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. and Safety National Casualty Corporation

Opinion

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

DEBRA AND RUSSELL MARBURY NO. 2021 CW 1599

VERSUS

CRACKER BARRELL OLD COUNTRY MARCH 21, 2022

STORE, INC. AND SAFETY

NATIONAL CASUALTY CORPORATION

In Re: Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., Safety National Casualty Corporation, Allied World National

Assurance Company, and Megan Childers, applying for

supervisory writs, 19th Judicial District Court,

Parish of East Baton Rouge, No. 668, 769.

BEFORE: GUIDRY, HOLDRIDGE, AND CHUTZ, JJ.

WRIT GRANTED. The trial court' s April 26, 2021 ruling granting the plaintiffs' motion for adverse presumption is reversed. Spoliation of evidence generally refers to an

intentional destruction of evidence for the purpose of depriving opposing parties of its use. BancorpSouth Bank v. Kleinpeter

Trace, L. L. C., 2013-- 1396 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 10/ 1/ 14), 155 So. 3d 614, 639. The trial court abused its discretion in granting an adverse instruction on spoliation of evidence where plaintiffs,

Debra and Russell Marbury, have not presented sufficient

evidence that the defendants, Cracker Barrel Old Country Store,

Inc., Safety National Casualty Corporation, Allied World National Assurance Company, and Megan Childers ( hereinafter Cracker Barrel"), intentionally destroyed evidence to deprive them of its use and where Cracker Barrel provided adequate

reasons for the loss of the evidence. See Id., 155 So. 3d at 639.

Accordingly, plaintiffs' motion for instruction on spoliation of evidence and the adverse presumption is denied.

JMG WRC

Holdridge, J., concurs. From the writ application, it appears that the contact information for Justin Richardson has been located, and the last known address of the former employee, Kaitlin Jones, has been provided. Therefore, it is uncertain at

this time as to whether a spoliation instruction will be required. For these reasons, I agree to reverse the decision of the trial court but would allow the issue to be revisited at a

later date depending upon further discovery in this case.

DEPUTY CLE K OF COURT FOR THE COURT