Newark Associate Afsha Noran and Managing Partner Colin P. Hackett won summary judgment on behalf of a property owner client in a products liability case. The Plaintiff filed an action alleging personal injuries due to a fall from a chair in the laundry room owned by our clients. We filed a summary judgment motion arguing that Plaintiff did not produce a liability expert to establish how the chair was defective or how our client breached any duty of care owed to Plaintiff. In opposition, Plaintiff argued that she could not obtain a liability expert because she did not have access to the subject chair as our client had disposed of it. Plaintiff alleged spoliation against our client as she notified them of attorney representation and requested our client to preserve the subject chair after the alleged incident. We argued that unavailability of some evidence does not absolve Plaintiff of analyzing any evidence. Plaintiff intended to rely solely on her allegation of spoliation to prove her case. There is no such claim under New Jersey Law. A spoliation claim alone does not relieve Plaintiff of her responsibility to carry the burden of proof. A spoliation claim would allow a jury to make a negative inference against our client, however, it does not absolve the Plaintiff on the requirement to put forth evidence from which the negative inference could be made. The court agreed and granted judgment in favor of defendant. The matter was dismissed with prejudice.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
