Print

Print


The Ohio Supreme Court has issued an important decision limiting a party’s
ability to pursue an independent tort claim for spoliation of evidence.
Ohio law excludes tort claims for negligent spoliation of evidence, but
permits intentional spoliation claims. *Smith v. Howard Johnson Co*., 67
Ohio St.3d 28, 615 N.E.2d 1037 (1993). The elements of intentional
spoliation of evidence have been: (1) pending or probable litigation
involving the plaintiff was in existence, (2) defendant had knowledge that
litigation existed or was probable, (3) willful destruction of evidence by
defendant designed to disrupt plaintiff’s case, (4) disruption of
plaintiff’s case, and (5) damages proximately caused by the defendant’s
acts.

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bit.ly_2G7dDGH&d=DwIFaQ&c=pZJPUDQ3SB9JplYbifm4nt2lEVG5pWx2KikqINpWlZM&r=b5NZPQUb9_r2rQ3Zd74ATT3aSs9yKyRnJLOhqJvd7fE&m=r2rm6CrVuM4KaUq2aK5C6A4TP5bApKuB16H1W91Plvk&s=TntQZWgoPmDth5V1lpK9oIsC4OKp974Rqy-OWoN1E0g&e=
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bit.ly_2G7dDGH-2B&d=DwIFaQ&c=pZJPUDQ3SB9JplYbifm4nt2lEVG5pWx2KikqINpWlZM&r=b5NZPQUb9_r2rQ3Zd74ATT3aSs9yKyRnJLOhqJvd7fE&m=r2rm6CrVuM4KaUq2aK5C6A4TP5bApKuB16H1W91Plvk&s=LyYwBcnpLKwvvbruLqqe0WOsk4pqy9IrQ0pbiQyLn4w&e=

-- 
Peterk
Dallas, Tx
[log in to unmask]
Save our in-boxes! https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__emailcharter.org&d=DwIFaQ&c=pZJPUDQ3SB9JplYbifm4nt2lEVG5pWx2KikqINpWlZM&r=b5NZPQUb9_r2rQ3Zd74ATT3aSs9yKyRnJLOhqJvd7fE&m=r2rm6CrVuM4KaUq2aK5C6A4TP5bApKuB16H1W91Plvk&s=OnSV8oCm5jKmFte2pQ051m2kY-5cd_FX0Tg5gaXW2Uo&e=
“If only there were a massive entity that I were forced to fund to tell me
how I should live my life, since I’m so obviously incapable of deciding for
myself.” M. Hashimoto

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]