Sullivan v. Dry Lake Dairy, Inc.

898 So. 2d 174, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 3038, 2005 WL 545279
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMarch 9, 2005
DocketNos. 4D03-3994, 4D03-4686
StatusPublished

This text of 898 So. 2d 174 (Sullivan v. Dry Lake Dairy, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Sullivan v. Dry Lake Dairy, Inc., 898 So. 2d 174, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 3038, 2005 WL 545279 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

William Sullivan, as personal representative of the estate of Guillermo Hernandez, appeals from a final summary judgment entered in favor of the decedent’s employer, defendant, Dry Lake Dairy, Inc. on a spoliation of evidence claim. We affirm.

The decedent died in an accident on a skid-steer loader while he was clearing manure from a cattle lane at a dairy. The trial court granted summary final judgment on the products liability claim against the manufacturer, ruling that at the time of the fatal accident the loader “was not in substantially the same condition as when it was manufactured and sold” by the manufacturer, in that it “had been materially and substantially altered.” That judgment has not been appealed.

The spoliation of evidence claim against the decedent’s employer was based on the loss of the operator’s seat from the loader. Three elements of a spoliation of evidence claim are the existence of a potential civil action, a significant impairment in the ability to prove such action (here the products liability claim), and a causal relationship between the evidence destruction and the inability to prove the lawsuit. See Royal & Sunalliance v. Lauderdale Marine Ctr., 877 So.2d 843, 845 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). Appellant failed to establish how the ability to inspect the lost seat could have overcome the problem with the case against the manufacturer, that the skid-steer loader had been materially altered after leaving the manufacturer’s possession. As Dry Lake argues, there was “no causal relationship between the absence of [176]*176the seat and the exoneration” of the manufacturer.

Affirmed.

KLEIN, GROSS and MAY, JJ„ concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Royal & Sunalliance v. LAUDERDALE MARINE
877 So. 2d 843 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
898 So. 2d 174, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 3038, 2005 WL 545279, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sullivan-v-dry-lake-dairy-inc-fladistctapp-2005.