Martino v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
2005 Fla. LEXIS 1457, 30 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 536, 908 So. 2d 342 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Florida law does not recognize an independent cause of action for first-party spoliation of evidence. Instead, remedies for a defendant's destruction or loss of evidence in an underlying tort action are limited to sanctions and an evidentiary presumption of negligence against the defendant.
Facts:
- In March 1997, Ronna Martino was shopping at a Wal-Mart store.
- Martino placed two forty-pound bags of salt in her shopping cart.
- At the checkout counter, a cashier asked Martino to lift the bags so the price code could be scanned.
- Martino complied, lifting one bag and placing it on the upper child-seat area of the shopping cart.
- As she did so, the shopping cart collapsed, causing Martino to injure her arm.
- Shortly after returning home, Martino called the store, spoke to an assistant manager, and informed him where the collapsed shopping cart was located in the parking lot.
- Later that day, Martino returned to the store to fill out an incident report, at which time she again showed the assistant manager the cart's location and requested that he preserve the surveillance videotape of the incident.
Procedural Posture:
- Ronna Martino and her husband sued Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. in a Florida trial court for negligence and loss of consortium.
- During discovery, Martino learned that Wal-Mart could not produce the shopping cart or the surveillance video, leading her to file a second amended complaint adding a separate claim for spoliation of evidence.
- The trial court granted Wal-Mart's motion to dismiss the spoliation of evidence claim.
- The case proceeded to trial on the negligence claims, where the trial court granted Wal-Mart's motion for a directed verdict.
- Martino, as appellant, appealed the trial court's decisions to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal, with Wal-Mart as the appellee.
- The Fourth District affirmed the dismissal of the spoliation claim but reversed the directed verdict on the negligence claims.
- The Fourth District then certified a conflict between its decision and the decision in Bondu v. Gurvich to the Supreme Court of Florida for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Florida law permit a plaintiff to bring an independent cause of action for first-party spoliation of evidence against a defendant who is also the alleged tortfeasor in the underlying litigation?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. Florida law does not permit an independent cause of action for first-party spoliation of evidence. Relying on its precedent in Public Health Trust of Dade County v. Valcin, the Court holds that existing remedies are sufficient to address the destruction of evidence by a defendant in the underlying case. These remedies include sanctions, such as those found in Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.380(b)(2), and a rebuttable presumption that the defendant was negligent in the underlying action. This presumption applies if the loss of evidence hinders the plaintiff's ability to establish a prima facie case. The Court found no demonstrated need to create a new, separate tort and expressly disapproved the conflicting holding in Bondu v. Gurvich.
Concurring - Wells, J.
No. While concurring with the majority's conclusion that no separate cause of action for first-party spoliation exists, this opinion emphasizes that any remedy for spoliation, including the Valcin presumption or sanctions, must be predicated on a pre-existing legal duty to preserve the evidence. The concurrence argues that without a duty established by statute, regulation, court order, or a discovery rule, imposing a penalty for spoliation raises serious due process concerns. In this case, since two years passed between the incident and the filing of the lawsuit, Wal-Mart had no legally defined duty to preserve the cart or videotape, and therefore no sanctions or adverse inferences should apply.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies Florida's approach to first-party spoliation by rejecting the creation of an independent tort, aligning with the majority view in other jurisdictions. By reaffirming the remedies available within the underlying litigation, such as adverse evidentiary presumptions and sanctions, the Court prioritizes judicial efficiency and avoids the complexities of 'a suit within a suit.' The ruling provides clarity for litigants, directing plaintiffs to seek relief for lost evidence through motions in the primary case rather than a separate lawsuit. However, Justice Wells's concurrence highlights a critical, unresolved tension: the trigger for the duty to preserve evidence, which remains a key threshold question for imposing any spoliation remedy.
Unlock the full brief for Martino v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.