A store’s motion for summary judgment was denied when the court applied a spoliation of evidence adverse inference due to the store’s failure to preserve video footage of an incident.

In a diversity matter, the plaintiff alleged that she suffered injuries after slipping and falling on a clear, gel-like substance while shopping in the defendant’s store. After the incident was reported to the defendant’s insurance carrier, the defendant was instructed by the carrier to preserve all surveillance camera footage from 20 minutes before and after the fall. While the defendant’s loss prevention manager originally reported that no such video existed, the manager later testified during his deposition that he reviewed video footage of the incident but he ultimately chose not to preserve it because he “didn’t think it was relevant.” The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis that the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the condition. In response, the plaintiff argued that the defendant’s motion should be denied since the defendant’s destruction of the surveillance footage amounted to spoliation of evidence. The plaintiff further argued as there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendant had notice, the defendant’s motion should be denied. In deciding the defendant’s motion, the district court ruled that the plaintiff was entitled at this stage of the proceeding to the benefit of an adverse inference that the video footage was not preserved because it contained evidence unfavorable to the defendant. The district court held that in applying this adverse inference, the defendant was not entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiff’s negligence claim. The district court further ruled that even without this adverse inference, the plaintiff presented evidence that the defendant had actual notice of the condition, which created a genuine issue of material fact. As such, the district court denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

^{Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter, October 2022 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2022 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}