However, in order for the injured party to pursue a remedy for spoliation, the spoliating party must have been under a duty to preserve the evidence at issue. Whitfield v. Tequila Mexican Restaurant No. 1, 323 Ga.App. 801, 807(6), 748 S.E.2d 281 (2013). OCGA § 24–14–22 provides:

“A spoliation claim cannot be pursued unless the spoliating party was under a duty to preserve evidence.” Whitfield v. Tequila Mexican Restaurant No. 1, 323 Ga.App. 801, 807(6), 748 S.E.2d 281 (2013) (citations and punctuation omitted). [T]o meet the standard for proving spoliation, the injured party must show that the alleged tortfeasor was put on notice that the party was contemplating litigation.

Phillips v. Harmon, 297 Ga. 386, 393–394, 774 S.E.2d 596 (2015). See also Whitfield v. Tequila Mexican Restaurant No. 1, 323 Ga.App. 801, 807(6), 748 S.E.2d 281 (2013), overruled on other grounds, Harmon, 297 Ga. at 398, 774 S.E.2d 596. Of particular relevance here, “[the] trial court has wide discretion in resolving spoliation issues, and we will not disturb its ruling absent abuse.” Kitchens v. Brusman, 303 Ga. App. 703, 705(1), 694 S.E.2d 667 (2010).Here, the trial court found that: (1) the collision between the plaintiffs and the driver of the stolen vehicle occurred on January 6, 2009; (2) pursuant to Atlanta Police Department Policy Manual, Standard Operating Procedure 4.18.3 (1), audio recordings “are kept for approximately 120 days before being reused,” meaning that the recording would have been reused on or about May 6, 2009; (3) Loehle submitted ante litem notice to the City on June 26, 2009; and (4) the City received Loehle's ante litem notice on or about June 29, 2009. Loehle filed its civil action against the City on December 13, 2010. It was not until December 12, 2012, in an email from the City in response to

(Citations and punctuation omitted; emphasis in original.) Whitfield v. Tequila Mexican Restaurant No. 1, Inc., 323 Ga.App. 801, 807(6), 748 S.E.2d 281 (2013). See also Clayton County v. Austin–Powell, 321 Ga.App. 12, 17, 740 S.E.2d 831 (2013).

Because the spoliation of evidence may give rise to sanctions against the spoliator, including dismissal of the complaint, an initial determination must be made that the spoliator had a duty to preserve the evidence at the time it was destroyed. Whitfield v. Tequila Mexican Restaurant No. 1, 323 Ga.App. 801, 807 (6), 748 S.E.2d 281 (2013) ("A spoliation claim cannot be pursued unless the spoliating party was under a duty to preserve the evidence."), overruled on other grounds, Phillips , 297 Ga. at 398 (II), 774 S.E.2d 596.

In Georgia, “[a] spoliation claim cannot be pursued unless the spoliating party was under a duty to preserve evidence.” Whitfield v. Tequila Mexican Rest. No. 1, 323 Ga.App. 801, 748 S.E.2d 281, 287 (2013). This duty may burden a party to a case if a third party destroys evidence when acting as the litigant's agent.

Under Georgia law, " [a] spoliation claim cannot be pursued unless the spoliating party was under a duty to preserve evidence." Whitfield v. Tequila Mexican Rest. No. 1, 748 S.E.2d 281, 287 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013). In the slip-and-f all context, courts have held that "the injured party must show that the alleged tortfeasor was put on notice that the party was contemplating litigation."

(Citations and punctuation omitted; emphasis in original.) Whitfield v. Tequila Mexican Restaurant No. 1, Inc., 323 Ga. App. 801, 807 (6) (748 SE2d 281) (2013). See also Clayton County v. Austin-Powell, 321 Ga. App. 12, 17 (740 SE2d 831) (2013).