Issue: In Massachusetts, how do you obtain relief under the spoilation doctrine?
| Area of Law: | Litigation & Procedure |
| Keywords: | Spoliation doctrine; Relief |
| Jurisdiction: | Massachusetts |
| Cited Cases: | 697 N.E.2d 527; 32 Mass.App.Ct. 564; 593 N.E.2d 248 |
| Cited Statutes: | None |
| Date: | 03/01/2001 |
The spoliation doctrine applies when an expert or a party to an action causes a change in or removes an item which is material to litigation, and the expert or party knew or reasonably should have known that the item was possibly relevant to litigation. Johnson v. Harvard Univ., 1996 WL 1186805 (Mass. Super. 1996). In order to obtain relief under the doctrine, the moving party must demonstrate:
1) that there was a negligent or intentional loss or destruction of physical evidence, 2) that the expert was aware that there was a potential for litigation, and that the physical evidence was material to that litigation, and 3) that the loss or destruction of the evidence created prejudice to the moving party.
Linnen v. A.H. Robins Co., 2000 WL 16768 (Mass. Super. 1999).
Spoliation of evidence may result from negligent or intentional destruction or loss of evidence, but does not result from fault-free destruction or loss. Kippenhan v. Chaulk Serv., Inc., 428 Mass. 124, 127, 697 N.E.2d 527, 530 (Mass. 1998). In Jean v. Waban, Inc., 1999 WL 1318960 (Mass. Super. 1999), the plaintiff was injured when a porcelain toilet that he was sitting on dislodged from the wall. An employee of the store took at least one photograph of the scene; however, that photograph was later lost, and the toilet was replaced and discarded. Id. In that case, because the store had a policy manual in place that required employees […]