Richardson v. Sara Lee Corp.
| Docket Number: | 2002-CA-01038-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-05-2003 Opinion Author: Carlson, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Negligent spoilation of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: Pittman, C.J., Smith, P.J., Waller, Cobb and Graves, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): McRae, P.J. Dissenting Author : Diaz and Easley, JJ. Procedural History: Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - TORTS-OTHER THAN PERSONAL INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-21-2002 Appealed from: Scott County Circuit Court Judge: Vernon Cotten Disposition: Motion to Dismiss granted in favor of Sara Lee Corp. Case Number: 2000-CV-0056-SC |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Donald Joe Richardson |
JOSEPH E. ROBERTS, JR. |
||
| Appellee: | Sara Lee Corporation | FORREST W. STRINGFELLOW ROBERT J. ARNOLD, III |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Negligent spoilation of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Donald Richardson sustained an on-the-job injury during his employment with Sara Lee Corporation. A settlement of Richardson’s workers’ compensation claim was approved by the Mississippi Workers’ Compensation Commission, and Richard executed a release for any and all claims arising out of the injury. Prior to the settlement of the workers' compensation claim, Richardson filed suit alleging negligent design, manufacture, and distribution of the Orderpicker which he was operating at the time of the injury, against NACCO Materials Handling Group, Inc. and/or Hyster Company. That suit was dismissed pursuant to an Agreed Order Granting Summary Judgment. Richardson later filed suit against Sara Lee alleging negligent spoliation of evidence. The court granted Sara Lee’s Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Motion For Summary Judgment. Richardson appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Richardson asks the Court to adopt and recognize a tort claim for the spoliation of evidence, whether that spoliation be negligent or intentional. In the case of Dowdle Butane Gas Co. v. Moore, 831 So.2d 1124 (Miss. 2002), the Supreme Court refused to recognize a separate tort for intentional spoliation of evidence against both first and third party spoliators. The Dowdle reasoning in refusing to recognize an independent cause of action for intentional spoliation of evidence (including infringement on the rights of property owners, endless litigation, and uncertainty of the fact of harm) gains even more force when applied to the issue of whether to recognize an independent cause of action for negligent spoliation of evidence. Richardson also argues that Sara Lee is liable under a general theory of negligence, because Sara Lee had a duty to preserve the Orderpicker which was created upon receipt of a letter from Richardson’s counsel to Sara Lee requesting an opportunity to inspect the Orderpicker. However, the letter was insufficient to establish a duty by Sara Lee to preserve the Orderpicker for use in litigation by Richardson. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
