 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Owens v. American Refuse Systems6/30/2000
BA-038
William Owens sued American Refuse Systems, Inc. ("ARS"), Waste Management Partners, Inc. ("Waste Management"), John Bellamy, Jr., and Continental Casualty Company ("CNA"), alleging that ARS destroyed a pressure tank which ARS owned, but had promised to keep safe for Owens, so that he could pursue a product liability case against a third party. Because ARS destroyed the tank, he contends that he had to dismiss his product liability case, which left the defendants responsible for damages due to spoliation of evidence, breach of contract based on promissory estoppel, and negligence, among other claims. The trial court granted summary judgment to all defendants, and Owens appeals. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
Owens suffered an eye injury in October 1993 when the cap blew off a pressure tank used to clean the inside of the garbage truck to which it was attached. When he was injured, Owens worked for ARS, which later became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Waste Management.
An ARS employee and an independent mechanic testified that, while the truck was being repaired in June 1995, an unknown person severed the truck's air line and removed the pressure tank that caused Owens' injury. Another witness employed by a different waste facility testified that he saw an ARS truck driver dump a tank resembling the one that injured Owens, and that later that day the tank was hauled away with other trash to a scrap yard in Winder. Owens became aware that the tank had been removed, and contacted his lawyer, who, in turn, contacted ARS's lawyer. ARS retrieved it from the Winder scrap yard shortly thereafter.
In October 1995, ARS, through its insurer CNA, settled Owens' workers' compensation claim. Also in October 1995, Owens brought a product liability suit against the tank's manufacturer. The tank remained in ARS's possession until some time in February or March 1996, when ARS sold it for scrap metal.
The trial court concluded that Georgia does not recognize spoliation of evidence as a separate tort, and that even under the foreign authority Owens cited, he would be "unable to show any injury or any damages from the loss of the tank" because he voluntarily dismissed his products liability case. The trial court also found that all of Owens' other causes of action failed because no evidence established that the defendants had a legal duty to preserve the tank.
1. On appeal from the grant of summary judgment, this Court conducts a de novo review of the record, construing the evidence and all inferences therefrom in favor of the nonmoving party. Maddox v. Southern Engineering Co., 231 Ga. App. 802, 802-03 (500 SE2d 591) (1998). Further, a judgment right for any reason must be affirmed. Simmons v. Boros, 255 Ga. 524, 525 (341 SE2d 2) (1986).
2. Owens argues that the trial judge erred in concluding that Georgia does not recognize spoliation of evidence as a separate tort. We find no error. In Gardner v. Blackston, 185 Ga. App. 754, 755 (1) (365 SE2d 545) (1988) (physical precedent only), we stated in dicta that Georgia law does not recognize spoliation of evidence as a separate tort. We again looked at the issue of spoliation as an independent tort in Sharpnack v. Hoffinger, 231 Ga. App. 829 (499 SE2d 363) (1998). We noted that the tort has been recognized in some jurisdictions, including California, Florida, and Alaska, and not recognized in others. We further noted that he underlying goal of the spoliation tort and related theories is to provide a remedy for prejudice to an opportunity to obtain compensation for the injuries upon which the underlying litigation is predicated. In other words, the spoliation tort involves interferen
Page 1 2 3 Georgia Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|