Koplin v. Rosel Well Perforators, Inc., 59986
Decision Date | 27 March 1987 |
Docket Number | No. 59986,59986 |
Parties | , 70 A.L.R.4th 973 Kelley E. KOPLIN, Appellant, v. ROSEL WELL PERFORATORS, INC., et al., Appellees. |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Before there can be any recovery in tort, there must be a violation of a duty owed by one party to the person seeking recovery.
2. Absent some independent tort, contract, agreement, voluntary assumption of
duty, or special relationship of the parties, the tort of "the intentional interference with a prospective civil action by spoliation of evidence" should not be recognized in Kansas.
3. In response to a certified question from the federal district court asking whether Kansas would recognize a common law tort action for intentional interference with a prospective civil action by spoliation of evidence, it is held: The answer is in the negative under the facts of this case.
Michael K. Mohrman, of Richards, Brandt, Miller & Nelson, Salt Lake City, argued and Mark S. Gunnison, of McDowell, Rice & Smith, Chartered, Kansas City, was with him on brief, for appellant.
Steven D. Ruse, of Shughart, Thomson & Kilroy, P.C., Overland Park, argued and Anthony F. Rupp, was with him on brief, for appellee Rosel Well Perforators, Inc.
This case was originally filed in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas and comes to this court by certification from that court pursuant to the Uniform Certification of Questions of Law Act, K.S.A. 60-3201 et seq. The order of the certifying court meets all the requirements of the act and we accepted certification.
The order from the United States District Court provides in pertinent part:
"Pursuant to K.S.A. 60-3201 et seq., this court, upon its own motion, hereby certifies to the Kansas Supreme Court the following questions of Kansas law, which are deemed to be determinative of this action and as to which no controlling precedent exists in the decisions of the Kansas Supreme Court or Kansas Court of Appeals.
(1) Whether Kansas would recognize a common law tort action for intentional interference with a prospective civil action by spoliation of evidence?
(2) If so, whether such a cause of action against plaintiff's employer would be barred by the exclusive remedy provisions of the Kansas Workmen's Compensation Act, K.S.A. 44-501 et seq.?
(3) If not barred by the Workmen's Compensation Act, whether, under the facts of this case, plaintiff has sufficiently alleged such a cause of action?
At the outset we note that this matter comes to us on the basis of the pleadings and without the benefit of any discovery. Under these circumstances, we must assume the facts stated in the plaintiff's complaint are true even though they might appear somewhat improbable and despite what may be insurmountable problems of proof. Thus, we accept plaintiff's allegations that an agent of his employer intentionally destroyed the T-clamp for the purpose of denying plaintiff access to evidence to be used in an action against the manufacturer and distributors of the T-clamp. The plaintiff describes his cause of action as being a new tort denominated as "the intentional interference with a prospective civil action by spoliation of evidence." We now turn to the question of whether this court should adopt such a cause of action by judicial decree.
Appellant readily concedes that the tort of spoliation of evidence is relatively new and so far as we can determine very few states have actually recognized such a tort. Absent some special relationship or duty rising by reason of an agreement, contract, statute, or other special circumstance, the general rule is that there is no duty to preserve possible evidence for another party to aid that other party in some future legal action against a third party.
First, a distinction must be made regarding the basis for a suit involving lost or destroyed evidence. Such a suit may be based upon negligence, wherein the plaintiff asserts the defendant negligently destroyed the evidence which impaired the plaintiff's right to sue a third party tortfeasor; or such a suit may be based upon intent, in which plaintiff asserts the defendant intentionally destroyed the evidence. The plaintiff's complaint, in the instant case, titles his cause of action as "TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE CIVIL ACTION BY SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE." In setting forth his allegations, the plaintiff states the defendant intentionally destroyed and/or disposed of the T-clamp.
More states have been faced with cases involving the negligent destruction of evidence than cases involving the intentional destruction of evidence. When negligence is the basis of the suit alleging an economic injury resulting from the destruction of evidence, a duty on behalf of the defendant arising from the relationship between the parties or some other special circumstance must exist in order for the cause of action to survive. In Bondu v. Gurvich, 473 So.2d 1307 (Fla.Dist.App.1984), a hospital had failed to preserve certain medical records pertaining to plaintiff. As a result, plaintiff lost a medical malpractice lawsuit against certain physicians because, in the absence of the hospital records, plaintiff was unable to obtain an expert witness. The Florida Court of Appeals, over a strong dissent by Chief Judge Schwartz, held that because of the hospital's statutory duty to maintain and make available medical records, plaintiff would be allowed to pursue a claim against the hospital for alleged spoliation of evidence. The basis for the decision in Bondu was a Florida statute which imposed a duty upon all hospitals to maintain and make available to patients their medical records, and the Court expressly found that it was the hospital's breach of that duty which gave rise to plaintiff's cause of action. Thus, the tort recognized in Bondu was based upon a statutory duty, and not upon any independent common-law duty to preserve evidence. It should be noted that in Bondu the plaintiff had also asserted a claim based upon the intentional destruction of records which was dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. No appeal was taken from that ruling.
In Coley v. Ogden Mem. Hosp., 107 A.D.2d 67, 485 N.Y.S.2d 876 (1985), plaintiff sustained injuries in the course of his employment when he fell from a ladder which collapsed. The ladder was discarded. Plaintiff sued his employer, alleging that the failure to preserve the ladder precluded discovery of the identity of its manufacturer and thereby foreclosed plaintiff's potential product liability action against third parties. The court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of plaintiff's claim, stating:
107 A.D.2d at 69, 485 N.Y.S.2d 876.
A federal district court applying Pennsylvania law allowed a negligence claim based on failure to preserve physical evidence in Pirocchi v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 365 F.Supp. 277 (E.D.Pa.1973). There, plaintiff was injured in the course of his employment when he...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hirsch v. General Motors Corp.
...v. Target Products, 580 N.E.2d 687 (Ind.1991); Dunlap v. City of Phoenix, 169 Ariz. 63, 817 P.2d 8 (1990); Koplin v. Rosel Well Perforators, Inc., 241 Kan. 206, 734 P.2d 1177 (1987); Pharr v. Cortese, 147 Misc.2d 1078, 559 N.Y.S.2d 780 Many states, including New Jersey, have criminal statut......
-
OMI Holdings, Inc. v. Howell
...circumstances alleged by OMI. In support of this conclusion, the district court noted that the Kansas courts, in Koplin v. Rosel Well Perforators, Inc., 734 P.2d 1177 [1987], and Hokanson v. Lichtor, 626 P.2d 214 [1981], had previously rejected civil causes of action for spoliation of evide......
-
Torres v. El Paso Elec. Co.
...recognize the tort of spoliation under some circumstances despite the court's rejection of the claim in Koplin v. Rosel Well Perforators, Inc., 241 Kan. 206, 734 P.2d 1177 (1987)). {41} Courts have articulated a number of reasons for rejecting a separate cause of action for spoliation of ev......
-
Dowdle Butane Gas Co., Inc. v. Moore
...the case); Meyn v. State, 594 N.W.2d 31 (Iowa 1999) (rejecting cause of action for negligent spoliation); Koplin v. Rosel Well Perforators, Inc., 241 Kan. 206, 734 P.2d 1177 (1987) (refusing to recognize separate tort for spoliation absent contract, agreement, voluntary assumption of duty o......
-
Products Liability and Toxic Tort Cases
...spoliation of evidence. See Miller v. Montgomery County , 64 Md.App. 202, 494 A.2d 761 (1985); Koplin v. Rosel Well Perforators, Inc. , 241 Kan. 206, 734 P.2d 1177 (1987); Federated Mut. Ins. Co. v. Litchfield Precision Components , 456 N.W.2d 434, 437 (Minn. 1990) (noting holdings from oth......
-
Production of Documents, Interrogatories and Inspection Demands
...Stores, Inc ., 824 N.E. 2d 349 (Ind. 2005); Lynch v. Saddler , 656 N.W.2d 104 (Iowa 2003); Koplin v. Rosel Well Perforators, Inc. , 241 Kan. 206 (Kan. 1987); Monsanto Co. v. Reed , 950 S.W.2d 811 (Ky. 1997); Desselle v. Jefferson Hosp. Dist. No. 2 ., 887 So.2d. 524 (La. App. 2004); Driggin ......
-
Now You See It, Now You Don't: a Georgia Perspective on Spoliation of Evidence
...that an employer had no duty to maintain evidence for an employee's civil action). [204]. See Koplin v. Rosel Well Perforators, Inc., 734 P.2d 1177, 1183 (Kan. 1987) (listing the "unwarranted intrusion on the property rights of a person who lawfully disposes of his own property" as reason f......
-
Handling Documents and Witnesses: Ethics, Crimes and Other Assorted Difficulties
...since 1998, at least three courts have recognized spoliation claims against a third party, unrelated to the original suit. Id. at 422. 22. 241 Kan. 206, 734 P.2d 1177 (1987). 23. Id. at 212-13. "The problem with this argument is that, absent a duty to preserve the T-clamp, appellee is not a......