Spoliation
Schaeffer v. Universal Scaffolding & Equipment, LLC
Schaeffer v. Universal Scaffolding & Equipment, LLC
In action alleging that plaintiff was injured when defective piece
of scaffolding struck him on his head, Dist. Ct. did not err in granting
defendant-manufacturer’s motion for summary judgment, where: (1) plaintiff
failed to produce actual defective piece; and (2) plaintiff could only produce
witnesses to state that they encountered several defect pieces of scaffolding
when working on project. Moreover, plaintiff could not proceed on similar
action against entity that hired plaintiff’s employer to build scaffold, since:
(1) party who hires independent contractor is generally not liable for
negligent acts of independent contractor; (2) instant entity, which had only
right to inspect and to require general safety over project, did not exercise
any operational control over details of project; and (3) plaintiff could
not establish any “failure to warn” theory, where he had as much or
greater knowledge about defective piece that said entity. Dist. Ct. erred,
though, in granting summary judgment by defendants-employer and entity hiring
employer on plaintiff’s negligent spoliation case, where: (1) both defendants
knew that scaffolding piece was involved in serious workplace injury; and (2)
at time piece was lost less than two years after accident, defendants could not
assume that piece was no longer pertinent to any personal injury claim even
though plaintiff had not actually asked for said piece by that time. Also,
employer was aware within one year of accident that plaintiff was attempting to
obtain information about piece, and hiring entity had voluntarily assumed duty
to preserve piece by asking employer to turn over piece for storage in entity’s
facility. Also, Dist. Ct. used wrong causation standard in spoliation action,
such that plaintiff was only required to show reasonable probability that he
would have won his negligence action had he been able to produce piece.
of scaffolding struck him on his head, Dist. Ct. did not err in granting
defendant-manufacturer’s motion for summary judgment, where: (1) plaintiff
failed to produce actual defective piece; and (2) plaintiff could only produce
witnesses to state that they encountered several defect pieces of scaffolding
when working on project. Moreover, plaintiff could not proceed on similar
action against entity that hired plaintiff’s employer to build scaffold, since:
(1) party who hires independent contractor is generally not liable for
negligent acts of independent contractor; (2) instant entity, which had only
right to inspect and to require general safety over project, did not exercise
any operational control over details of project; and (3) plaintiff could
not establish any “failure to warn” theory, where he had as much or
greater knowledge about defective piece that said entity. Dist. Ct. erred,
though, in granting summary judgment by defendants-employer and entity hiring
employer on plaintiff’s negligent spoliation case, where: (1) both defendants
knew that scaffolding piece was involved in serious workplace injury; and (2)
at time piece was lost less than two years after accident, defendants could not
assume that piece was no longer pertinent to any personal injury claim even
though plaintiff had not actually asked for said piece by that time. Also,
employer was aware within one year of accident that plaintiff was attempting to
obtain information about piece, and hiring entity had voluntarily assumed duty
to preserve piece by asking employer to turn over piece for storage in entity’s
facility. Also, Dist. Ct. used wrong causation standard in spoliation action,
such that plaintiff was only required to show reasonable probability that he
would have won his negligence action had he been able to produce piece.