 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Gomez v. Acquistapace10/31/1996
California Court of Appeals
No. B099159.
50 Cal.App.4th 740, 57 Cal.Rptr.2d 821, 1996.ca.4
October 31, 1996
MARIA G. GOMEZ ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS,
v.
JAMES ACQUISTAPACE ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND RESPONDENTS.
Santa Barbara County Superior Court. Super. Ct. No. SM 086874. Hon. Rodney S. Melville, Judge.
Bennett, Johnson & Galler, Robert B. Galler, Esteban L. Valenzuela and Marc Sherman for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Weldon & DeGasparis and Richard P. Weldon for Defendants and Respondents.
Opinion by Yegan, J., with Stone S. J., P. J., and Gilbert, J., Concurring.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Yegan
YEGAN, J.
Jose Luis Gomez choked to death at work when his clothing became tangled in a powered posthole digger. A few days later his employer destroyed the posthole digger. Maria G. Gomez (Gomez), Jose's widow, sued the employer for negligent and intentional spoliation of evidence, alleging that destruction of the posthole digger prevented her from recovering damages in a third party action against its manufacturer. She appeals from the trial court's order granting the employer's motion for summary judgment.
The trial court ruled the negligent spoliation cause of action was barred by the exclusive remedy provisions of workers' compensation law. (Lab. Code, ยง 3600 and 3602.) As to the intentional spoliation cause of action, the trial court ruled that it was barred because Gomez failed to show that the employer acted with the intent to prejudice her chances of prevailing in the third party action. Both rulings were erroneous and we reverse.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
After Jose Gomez's death, investigators from the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Department and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) inspected and photographed both the posthole digger and the tractor on which it was mounted. A few days later, Jose's employer, James Acquistapace, asked the OSHA inspector whether he could destroy the post hole digger. When the inspector voiced no objection, Acquistapace instructed one of his employees to cut up and dispose of the item. The employee did so.
Gomez sued Acquistapace, the manufacturer of the posthole digger, and the manufacturer of the tractor on which it was mounted on theories of negligence and products liability. Gomez stipulated to a judgment in favor of the manufacturers because, she argues, loss of the posthole digger prevented her from obtaining the evidence necessary to prevail.
Acquistapace moved for summary judgment on the ground that workers' compensation provided the exclusive remedy for each claim alleged against him. He also argued that Gomez was not prejudiced by the loss of the posthole digger. Acquistapace's moving papers did not raise an issue concerning his intent in destroying the equipment. Nevertheless, he submitted a declaration stating that he "had the post hole digger destroyed as it gave me bad memories. . . . I did not destroy to hide or conceal anything about it. . . . Another reason for getting rid of the post hole digger was so no one else would make a mistake like Mr. Gomez and use without the guard on the power take off shaft or get off the tractor when the power take off was operating and rotating." Acquistapace referred to the declaration only in connection with his argument that Gomez was not prejudic
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|