 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Gribben v. Wal-Mart Stores3/22/2005
ional benefits a tort remedy might create" are outweighed by other policy considerations and costs, the Cedars-Sinai court denied a tort remedy for first-party intentional spoliation of evidence. Id. at 521. One year later, the same court similarly disapproved a tort remedy for intentional spoliation by a third party. Temple Cmty. Hosp., 976 P.2d at 233.
As discussed above, several other jurisdictions have likewise decided to disallow an independent tort for evidence spoliation. In summarizing its decision, the Texas Supreme Court stated:
This Court treads cautiously when deciding whether to recognize a new tort. While the law must adjust to meet society's changing needs, we must balance that adjustment against boundless claims in an already crowded judicial system. We are especially averse to creating a tort that would only lead to duplicative litigation, encouraging inefficient relitigation of issues better handled within the context of the core cause of action. We thus decline to recognize evidence spoliation as an independent tort.
Trevino, 969 S.W.2d at 951-52. The Mississippi Supreme Court observed, "as the California courts have leaned after 14 years of experience with this tort, any benefits obtained by recognizing the spoliation tort are outweighed by the burdens imposed." Richardson, 847 So. 2d at 824.
Notwithstanding the important considerations favoring the recognition of an independent tort of spoliation by parties to litigation, we are persuaded that these are minimized by existing remedies and outweighed by the attendant disadvantages. We thus determine the common law of Indiana to be that, if an alleged tortfeasor negligently or intentionally destroys or discards evidence that is relevant to a tort action, the plaintiff in the tort action does not have an additional independent cognizable claim against the tortfeasor for spoliation of evidence under Indiana law.
It may well be that that the fairness and integrity of outcome and the deterrence of evidence destruction may require an additional tort remedy when evidence is destroyed or impaired by persons that are not parties to litigation and thus not subject to existing remedies and deterrence. But the certified questions are directed only to first-party spoliation, and we therefore decline to address the issue with respect to third-party spoliation.
Conclusion
We answer the first certified question in the negative: Indiana law does not recognize a claim for "first-party" negligent or intentional spoliation of evidence. It is thus unnecessary to answer the second question.
Shepard, C.J., and Sullivan, Boehm, and Rucker, JJ., concur.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Indiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|