 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Falde v. Bush Brothers & Company9/25/2001
Appellant sued respondent companies contending that she suffered severe chemical burns after eating a spoonful of beans manufactured by respondent. The district court granted summary judgment because plaintiff had poured the beans down the garbage disposal and therefore made them unavailable for testing. Appellant argues that the spoliation of the evidence does not mandate dismissal of her claim. We reverse.
FACTS
By her account, on June 15, 1999, Margaret Falde opened a can of Bush's Barbecue Baked Beans that she had purchased from a Cub Foods store, and placed a spoonful into her mouth. Immediately, Falde began choking, vomiting, and drew labored breath. The episode continued for 15 to 20 minutes while she attempted to wash out her mouth with water. Falde's tongue and mouth swelled up and she had a "terrible burning pain" in her mouth.
That evening, Falde poured the can of beans down the sink and threw away the can. She iced her mouth but had difficulty sleeping. In the morning, she went to Stillwater Medical Group, where she worked, and was examined by a doctor who diagnosed her with a probable chemical burn in her mouth. The pain and swelling continued through the week following the incident and Falde realized that her medical problems were not simply going away. She then retrieved the can out of the trash but, at that point, there was very little material left in the can.
Falde then contacted the manufacturer of the baked beans, Bush Brothers & Company (Bush Brothers). A claims representative told her to complete and send in some forms along with the product involved in the incident. Subsequently, the claims representative notified Falde that, due to their inability to test the product, Bush Brothers would not assume liability.
Falde filed a lawsuit against Bush Brothers and Cub Foods (collectively "defendants"), based on strict product liability for defective manufacturing, negligence, negligence per se, and breach of warranty. In addition, she generally raised the issue of res ipsa loquitur.
Defendants moved for summary judgment, claiming that Falde's spoliation of the evidence made it impossible to test the product and that she could not establish a prima facie case without the physical evidence. The district court granted the motion, ruling that because the question of whether the beans were defectively manufactured could not be answered, defendants were afforded "little to no defense,"—making summary judgment appropriate. The court also ruled that Falde could not proceed on a theory of res ipsa loquitur. This appeal followed.
DECISION
Defendants construe the district court's order as imposing the sanction of dismissal of the case for spoliation of the evidence. In fact, the district court's order properly found that the sanctions issue was moot. This conclusion is proper because the lack of physical evidence here affects each party equally; neither party had access to the evidence. The fact that a particular form of evidence no longer exists does not necessitate sanctions. It is only when one party gains an evidentiary advantage due to its failure to preserve evidence after that party has been given the opportunity to examine it, that a spoliation sanction is justified. See, e.g. Patton v. Newmar Corp., 538 N.W.2d 116 (Minn. 1995); Hoffman v. Ford Motor Co., 587 N.W.2d 66 (Minn. App. 1998); Himes v. Woodings-Verona Tool Works, Inc., 565 N.W.2d 469, 471 (Minn. App. 1997) (holding that sanctions were appropriate where one party may have gained an advantage over the other by having access to evidence that is no longer available to another party), review denied (Minn. Aug. 26, 1997).
Page 1 2 3 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|