Hodge v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. - 360 F.3d 446 (4th Cir. 2004)

Rule:

The spoliation of evidence rule allows the drawing of an adverse inference against a party whose intentional conduct causes not just the destruction of evidence, but also against one who fails to preserve or produce evidence -- including the testimony of witnesses. But such an inference cannot be drawn merely from his negligent loss or destruction of evidence; the inference requires a showing that the party knew the evidence was relevant to some issue at trial and that his willful conduct resulted in its loss or destruction.

Facts:

The plaintiff customer was injured by mirrors that fell from an upper shelf of a mirror display in a store. A store employee allowed a witness to leave the store without obtaining identification or contact information. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant store owner had constructive notice that the mirror display constituted an unsafe condition. Plaintiff sued defendant, asserting a negligence claim. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the store owner. The plaintiff appealed, claiming that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to apply an adverse inference based on the employee's alleged spoliation of relevant evidence.

Issue:

Was the defendant store owner entitled to summary judgment?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The employee's actions did not constitute a willful loss of evidence resulting in an abuse of the judicial process. Even assuming that the mirror display posed an unsafe condition that resulted in the plaintiff's injury, the defendant lacked actual or constructive notice of the unsafe condition. The plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence of when the condition arose, and thus could not establish that the condition was in existence for a time sufficiently long for a jury to conclude that the defendant was negligent in addressing it.