The destructive act must be intentional; mere negligent destruction of evidence does not constitute spoliation. Schneider v. G. Guilliams, Inc., 976 S.W.2d 522, 527 (Mo.App.E.D.1998). The spoliator must destroy or alter the evidence under circumstances indicating fraud, deceit, or bad faith.
The destructive act must be intentional; mere negligent destruction of evidence does not constitute spoliation. Schneider v. G. Guilliams, Inc., 976 S.W.2d 522, 527 (Mo.App.E.D.1998). The spoliator must destroy or alter the evidence under circumstances indicating fraud, deceit, or bad faith.
"`Spoliation' is the destruction or significant alteration of evidence.'" Schneider v. G. Guilliams,Inc. , 976 S.W.2d 522, 526 (Mo.App. 1998) (quoting Baugher v. GatesRubber Co. , 863 S.W.2d 905, 907 (Mo.App. 1993)). A party who intentionally spoliates evidence is subject to an adverse evidentiary inference.
"`Spoliation' is the destruction or significant alteration of evidence." Schneider v. G. Guilliams, Inc. , 976 S.W.2d 522, 526 (Mo.App. 1998) (quoting Baugher v. Gates Rubber Co. , 863 S.W.2d 905, 907 (Mo.App. 1993)). A party who intentionally spoliates evidence is subject to an adverse evidentiary inference.
See Baldridge v. Director of Revenue, 82 S.W.3d 212, 223 (Mo.Ct.App. 2002); Garrett v. Terminal R. Ass'n of St. Louis, 259 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Mo. 1953); Schneider v. G. Guilliams, Inc., 976 S.W.2d 522, 526 (Mo.Ct.App. 1998). โThe adverse inference, however, does not prove the opposing party's case.
The destructive act must be intentional; mere negligent destruction of evidence does not constitute spoliation. Schneider v. G. Guilliams, Inc., 976 S.W.2d 522, 527 (Mo.App.E.D.1998). The spoliator must destroy or alter the evidence under circumstances indicating fraud, deceit, or bad faith.
The destructive act must be intentional; mere negligent destruction of evidence does not constitute spoliation. Schneider v. G. Guilliams, Inc., 976 S.W.2d 522, 527 (Mo.App.E.D.1998). The spoliator must destroy or alter the evidence under circumstances indicating fraud, deceit, or bad faith.
Second, the spoliation doctrine is limited to cases where a party, directly or indirectly, takes part in the destruction of evidence. Schneider v. G. Guittiams, Inc., 976 S.W.2d 522, 528 (Mo.App. E.D. 1998). The purpose of the doctrine is to punish the spoliator.
A breach of warranty action accrues when tender of delivery is made, except that where a warranty explicitly extends to future performance of the goods and discovery of the breach must await the time of such performance, the cause of action accrues when the breach is or should have been discovered. MO. REV. STAT. ยง 400.2-725(2) (1994); see also Ouellette Machinery Systems, Inc. v. Clinton Lindberg Cadillac Co., 60 S.W.3d 618 (Mo.App. 2001); Schneider v. G. Gulliams, Inc., 976 S.W.2d 522 (Mo.App. 1998). Plaintiff alleges in her Petition that delivery and installation of the tires took place on May 16, 2001.
"`Spoliation is the destruction or significant alteration of evidence.'" Schneider v. G. Guilliams, Inc., 976 S.W.2d 522, 526 (Mo.App. 1998) (quoting Baugher v. Gates Rubber Co., 863 S.W.2d 905, 907 (Mo.App. 1993)). A party who intentionally destroys or significantly alters evidence is subject to an adverse evidentiary inference under the spoliation of evidence doctrine.