Rockwell Intern. Corp. v. Menzies, 88-3091
| Decision Date | 15 May 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-3091,88-3091 |
| Citation | 561 So.2d 677 |
| Parties | 15 Fla. L. Weekly D1359 ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Appellant. v. Gregorie MENZIES and Ziol Menzies, his wife, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Kubicki, Bradley, Draper, Gallagher & McGrane, and Daniels & Hicks, and Sam Daniels, and Patrice A. Talisman, Miami, for appellant.
Grover, Ciment, Weinstein, Stauber & Friedman, Miami Beach, and Cooper, Wolfe & Bolotin, and Marc Cooper, and Joan M. Bolotin, Miami, for appellees.
Before BASKIN, FERGUSON and GERSTEN, JJ.
Appellant, Rockwell International Corporation (Rockwell), appeals a final judgment in favor of appellee, Gregorie Menzies, on Menzies's product liability action against Rockwell. After striking Rockwell's pleadings and entering a default order against Rockwell on liability, the trial court held a jury trial on damages. We affirm.
The facts are unique, and thus, we need pay attention to minutiae. In 1979, Menzies purchased a Rockwell manufactured table saw which was sold without a motor. The box containing the Rockwell table saw had an instruction manual and an assembly package with nuts and bolts for attaching a motor. Menzies obtained a motor made by another company, Dayton, and had the Dayton motor installed on the Rockwell saw.
In 1979, while Menzies was using the saw, it jammed. Menzies sought to determine the cause of the jam. He lowered the saw blade below the table top, turned the saw on, and, while looking from under the table at the saw, placed his hand on the table top. The blade rose and injured Menzies's hand.
In 1980, Menzies sued Rockwell for negligence and strict liability. Menzies's causal theory of the accident was that the saw blade improperly rose due to a design defect. Rockwell's causal theory of the accident was that the saw blade rose because Menzies had installed the wrong motor on the saw.
During the five to six years of litigation preceding the trial of the case, the parties were each provided access to the saw for inspection purposes. Rockwell's inspection of the saw was specifically restricted by a court order which provided that the saw "not be altered nor destructed [sic] in any way." Eventually, the saw was returned to Menzies.
Prior to trial in 1986, Rockwell again sought access to the saw. Menzies agreed to permit Rockwell to inspect the saw, providing Rockwell "not alter or experiment with, the saw." Rockwell confirmed by letter that the saw would have "no alterations done to it" nor would "it be destructed [sic] in any way."
Menzies's counsel was initially in attendance at Rockwell's inspection of the saw. Rockwell, however, refused to perform the inspection with counsel for Menzies in attendance. After Menzies's counsel left, Rockwell proceeded with its "inspection" of the saw.
First, Rockwell's experts ran the saw with the Dayton motor. The blade rose. Then they tried to remove the Dayton motor, but two of the three bolts which held it would not turn. One of the experts acquired a hammer and chisel and hacked off the two bolts.
The experts then installed a Rockwell motor on the table saw using two replacement bolts and the one original bolt. When Rockwell's experts ran the saw, the blade did not rise.
The experts put the Dayton motor back on the saw using the two replacement bolts and the one original bolt. They ran the saw and the blade did not rise. When the experts loosened the bolts, however, the blade rose. Rockwell's experts finished their "inspection," but failed to retain the two original hacked off bolts.
Shortly after this "inspection", Menzies deposed Rockwell's experts and learned that Rockwell's theory of the cause of the accident had changed. Now Rockwell argued that Menzies's use of defective bolts to fasten the motor to the mounting caused the accident and that Rockwell did not supply these bolts.
Based on Rockwell's intentional destruction and loss of the two bolts, Menzies moved to strike Rockwell's pleadings. Denying the requested relief, the trial court ruled that: (1) Rockwell was prohibited from offering testimony concerning any connection between the accident and the bolts; and, (2) Rockwell could offer testimony concerning the condition of the attachment of the motor to the rest of the apparatus. The cause proceeded to trial.
Based upon the trial court's pre-trial rulings, Menzies presented his case before the jury. The sword of Menzies's case was expert testimony that a design defect caused the blade to rise on its own. Menzies sheathed his sword, and rested.
Rockwell then presented expert testimony that the blade rose because of machine vibration. The expert explained the machine vibrated not because of a design defect but because it was not firmly secured to the motor plate.
Rockwell's expert further stated that the reason the motor was not firmly secured was due to something the customer was responsible for at the time of the motor's installation. Menzies, finding himself on a precipice, sought direction from the trial court on how to cross examine Rockwell's expert without opening the door to the excluded testimony concerning the bolts.
At this juncture, the trial court found that its previous order had placed Menzies in an untenable position. The court also found that Menzies could not contradict Rockwell's expert testimony about the allegedly loose attachment and machine vibration, without the bolts that Rockwell had hacked off and had lost.
As an alternative to its previous order prohibiting testimony on the bolts, the trial court suggested that Rockwell's expert be precluded from testifying. Rockwell rejected this proposal. The court then declared a mistrial and ordered a hearing on a motion for sanctions.
Prior to the hearing on sanctions, the trial judge recused himself. Judge Sidney Shapiro was assigned to the case and held the sanction hearing. Judge Shapiro, finding no bad faith, entered an order striking Rockwell's pleadings and entered a default against Rockwell on liability.
The case proceeded to a new trial on damages before Judge Samuel I. Silver. At the beginning of trial, Rockwell asked whether it was entitled to litigate the question of comparative negligence. Responding that he could not clarify Judge Shapiro's order, Judge Silver offered to recess the trial so that Rockwell could seek clarification from Judge Shapiro. Judge Silver explained that otherwise, he would "take the pleadings at face value and proceed on the issue of damages only." Rockwell rejected Judge Silver's offer and declined to seek clarification from Judge Shapiro. The trial was held and the jury returned a verdict awarding damages to Menzies. The trial court denied Rockwell's motion for new trial, and this appeal followed.
Rockwell first contends the trial court erred in striking its pleadings and entering a default on liability because there was no evidence that Rockwell acted in bad faith. True, the trial court found that Rockwell did not act in bad faith by intentionally destroying and losing the two bolts. This absence of bad faith, however, did not preclude the trial court from imposing these sanctions here.
This court has recognized that drastic sanctions, including a default, are appropriate when a defendant who has been ordered not to destroy evidence does, in fact, alter or destroy critical physical evidence, and when the plaintiff has demonstrated an inability to proceed without such evidence. DePuy, Inc. v. Eckes, 427 So.2d 306 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). In so ruling, this court concluded that whether the defendant destroyed the evidence in "bad faith or accidentally is irrelevant." DePuy, Inc. v. Eckes, 427 So.2d at 308.
We are cognizant that evidence cannot always be clothed in velvet and kept in a pristine condition. We also recognize Rockwell's destruction and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Metropolitan Dade County v. Bermudez
...cure the prejudice. See Federal Ins. Co. v. Allister Mfg. Co., 622 So.2d 1348, 1350-52 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Rockwell Int'l Corp. v. Menzies, 561 So.2d 677, 679-80 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Hirsch v. General Motors Corp., 266 N.J.Super. 222, 628 A.2d 1108, 1127-29 (1993). Intentional destruction o......
-
Torres v. Matsushita Elec. Corp.
...of its defenses would have been granted by striking its pleadings and entering a default on liability. See Rockwell Int'l Corp. v. Menzies, 561 So.2d 677 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Sponco Mfg., Inc. v. Alcover, 656 So.2d 629 (Fla. 3d DCA ...
-
Keene v. Brigham & Women's Hospital
...... based on fault alone. United Artists Corp. v. La Cage Aux. Folles, Inc. , 771 F.2d 1265, 1270 (9th ... doctor(s), making rounds and resident(s), or intern(s) who. saw Dylan in the regular care nursery as a result ... (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1995); Rockwell International Corp. v. Menzies , 561 So.2d 677 ......
-
ANESTHESIOLOGY CARE CONSULTANTS v. Kretzer, No. 4D00-2514
...to those cases in which either primary or secondary evidence is lost, destroyed, or not maintained. See Rockwell Int'l Corp. v. Menzies, 561 So.2d 677, 681 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)(The defendant's intentional destruction and loss of two bolts bore on the crucial question of the cause of the plain......
-
Deconstructing damages for destruction of evidence: Martino eradicates the first-party tort of spoliation of evidence.
...3d D.C.A. 1995); Metropolitan Dade County v. Bermudez, 648 So. 2d 197, 200-01 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 1994); Rockwell Int'l Corp. v. Menzies, 561 So. 2d 677, 678 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1990); DePuy, Inc. v. Eckes, 427 So. 2d 306, 308 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. (22) See Sterbenz v. Attina, 205 F. Supp. 2d 65, 74 (E.......
-
Spoliated evidence: better than the real thing?
...the evidence was held to be irrelevant. The principles announced in DePuy were expanded in Rockwell International Corp. v. Menzies, 561 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). In Rockwell, the Third District, citing DePuy, affirmed an order striking a table saw manufacturer's answer and affirmative ......
-
The wild and wooly world of inference and presumptions - when silence is deafening.
...court reversed, ruling that the evidence was never under the defendant's control. (30) Finally, in Rockwell Intern. Corp. v. Menzies, 561 So. 2d 677, 678-81 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), the court was faced with a situation more egregious than presented in Valcin. The plaintiff sued a saw manufacture......