 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
McLean v. Bourget's Bike Works10/7/2005
only when the spoliation occurs in circumstances indicating fraud and a desire to suppress the truth. It does not arise when the destruction was a matter of routine with no fraudulent intent.
As we understand Bourget's argument, it is asserting that Mr. McLean's sale of the motorcycle back to Custom Cycle has undermined its ability to defend against the products liability claim. Specifically, Bourget's asserts that the sale of the motorcycle deprives it of an opportunity to have its own expert examine the motorcycle to determine whether it was altered after it left the defendant's control.
The absence of the motorcycle may very well complicate both the prosecution and defense of the products liability claim, but it does not completely prevent litigating the claim. Any difficulty of this sort does not rise to the level of spoliation without evidence that the party responsible for the evidence intentionally destroyed it or put it beyond the reach of the parties or the court to suppress the truth. Bourget's offered no evidence that Mr. McLean sold the motorcycle back to Custom Cycle in order to place it beyond Bourget's reach. Accordingly, the trial court erred by drawing the inference at the summary judgment stage that the motorcycle's frame, had it been available, would have provided evidence favorable to Bourget's claim that the frame had been altered after the motorcycle left the manufacturer's control.
V. The Release Signed in the Earlier Litigation
As a final matter, Mr. McLean argues that the trial court erred by concluding that the release he signed in the earlier litigation with Custom Cycle was broad enough to cover his claims against Bourget's. We have determined that the trial court erred both procedurally and substantively when it granted the summary judgment on this ground.
While trial courts may grant summary judgments to non-moving parties, they must exercise this power with meticulous care. Thomas v. Transp. Ins. Co., 532 S.W.2d 263, 266 (Tenn. 1976). Such decisions should be made only when the trial court is satisfied that the party opposing the summary judgment has been given notice and has been given a reasonable opportunity to respond to all the issues being considered by the court. March Group, Inc. v. Bellar, 908 S.W.2d 956, 959 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995). This record contains no indication that Mr. McLean was on notice that the trial court was considering granting a summary judgment on a ground not contained in Bourget's motion. Accordingly, the summary judgment is procedurally defective because Mr. McLean was not given a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate why the release did not provide a basis for a summary judgment.
In addition, the trial court misread the terms of the release between Mr. McLean and Custom Cycle. The release defined the parties to be released as follows "all persons or entities which may be liable through" Mr. Appleton and Custom Cycle. If Bourget's is liable to Mr. McLean, it is not "through" Custom Cycle. Custom Cycle was never an authorized agent or dealer of Bourget's and the record contains no evidence that the two entities were associated in any other way. There was no vertical privity between Custom Cycle and Bourget's when Custom Cycle signed the release. Because the release of liability does not concern Bourget's in any way, the trial court erred by granting summary judgment on that ground.
VI. The Other Grounds for Bourget's' Summary Judgment Motion
Even though we have determined that the trial court's reasons for granting Bourget's motion for summary judgment were flawed, we have determined that the trial court reached the correct result because the remaining two
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|