Panich v. Iron Wood Products Corp., Docket No. 113894

Citation445 N.W.2d 795,179 Mich.App. 136
Decision Date22 September 1989
Docket NumberDocket No. 113894
PartiesThomas PANICH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. IRON WOOD PRODUCTS CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee. 179 Mich.App. 136, 445 N.W.2d 795
CourtCourt of Appeal of Michigan (US)

[179 MICHAPP 137] Wisti & Jaaskelainen, P.C. by Mark Andrew Wisti, Hancock, for plaintiff-appellant.

Geissler & Dean, P.C. by Timothy M. Dean, Ironwood, for defendant-appellee.

Before MURPHY, P.J., and MacKENZIE and GRIFFIN, JJ.

GRIFFIN, Judge.

Plaintiff appeals as of right from a lower court judgment granting defendant's motion for summary disposition as to plaintiff's claim that defendant wrongfully destroyed evidence necessary for plaintiff's third-party tort action. We affirm.

I

On April 22, 1980, an electrical box on a lathe machine at defendant's plant exploded causing [179 MICHAPP 138] personal injuries to plaintiff, Thomas Panich. At the time of the accident, Panich was employed in defendant's maintenance department and was attempting to reset the box. As a result of his injuries, plaintiff was off work for six to seven months. When he returned, the plaintiff learned that during his absence the defendant had disposed of the remains of the electrical box at a local landfill.

Plaintiff filed the instant action against defendant, Iron Wood Products Corporation, on January 18, 1982, alleging negligence and interference with an economic advantage. Plaintiff asserted in his complaint that his employer intentionally discarded the electrical box after knowing that the plaintiff had a potential third-party claim against the manufacturer of the box. Through discovery, however, the following facts became undisputed: (1) plaintiff never requested the defendant to save the electrical box; and (2) defendant never assumed an obligation to preserve the damaged box. Additionally, there was no evidence that plaintiff advised the defendant of his intention to file a third-party action until after the electrical box had been discarded.

On the basis of this record, the lower court granted defendant's motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), ruling that the defendant had no duty to preserve potential evidence for the benefit of its employee.

II

On appeal, plaintiff argues that the common law and the Workers' Disability Compensation Act, M.C.L. Sec. 418.827, subds. (1) and (5); M.S.A. Sec. 17.237(827), subds. (1) and (5), impose an affirmative duty on an employer to preserve evidence which might be [179 MICHAPP 139] used in an employee's third-party liability action. We disagree.

A motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual support for a claim. The court must consider the pleadings, affidavits, depositions, admissions, and other documentary evidence available to it and grant summary disposition if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A party opposing a motion brought under (C)(10) may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials in his or her pleadings, but must by affidavit, deposition, admission, or other documentary evidence set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. MCR 2.116(G)(4).

Plaintiff's complaint sought recovery on two theories: negligence and intentional interference with an economic advantage. Addressing the negligence claim first, we note that the issue of duty is a question of law for the court to decide. Moning v. Alfono, 400 Mich. 425, 437, 254 N.W.2d 759 (1977), reh. den., 401 Mich. 951 (1977). The existence of a duty is essentially a question of whether the relationship between the actor and the injured party gives rise to a legal obligation on the actor's part for the benefit of the injured party. Id. at pp. 438-439, 254 N.W.2d 759. The existence of a legal duty is an essential element of every negligence action. Duvall v. Goldin, 139 Mich.App. 342, 347, 362 N.W.2d 275 (1984), lv. den., 422 Mich. 976 (1985).

The issue before us of whether an employer has a duty to preserve evidence for the benefit of an employee's potential third-party suit is a matter of first impression in Michigan. We therefore turn to other jurisdictions for guidance.

In Coley v. Arnot Ogden Memorial Hospital, 107 A.D.2d 67, 485 N.Y.S.2d 876 (1985), an employee of [179 MICHAPP 140] the defendant hospital was standing on a ladder when it collapsed, causing her injuries. The defendant's employees discarded the ladder after the accident, thus precluding the plaintiff from discovering the name of the ladder's manufacturer and effectively negating her third-party products liability claim.

The New York court ruled that the defendant did not owe the plaintiff a duty to preserve the ladder and, thus, the plaintiff had no cause for action. Id., 107 A.D.2d at p. 69, 485 N.Y.S.2d 876. The court's reasoning was based on the fact that the employer had innocently decided to discard the ladder to ensure the safety of others. Id. The court was unable to identify any duty owed and noted that the defendant had not assumed an obligation to preserve the ladder for plaintiff's benefit. Id.

Other jurisdictions have ruled consistently in accord. See Stupka v. Peoples Cab Co., 437 Pa. 509, 264 A.2d 373 (1970), Parker v. Thyssen Mining Construction, Inc., 428 So.2d 615 (Ala.1983), and Koplin v. Rosel Well Perforators, Inc., 241 Kan. 206, 734 P.2d 1177 (1987).

We agree with these authorities and likewise hold that there is no common-law duty owed by an employer to preserve evidence for an employee's potential third-party action.

III

Plaintiff also asserts that the WDCA, M.C.L. Sec. 418.827 subds. (1) and (5); M.S.A. Sec. 17.237(827) subds. (1) and (5), 1 establishes a statutory duty on employers[179 MICHAPP 141] to preserve evidence for the benefit of their employees. We disagree.

A cardinal rule of statutory construction is that the words and phrases in a statute are to be given their plain and ordinary meaning. Van Dam v. Grand Rapids Civil Service Bd., 162 Mich.App. 135, 138, 412 N.W.2d 260 (1987). Common sense should be employed when construing a statute. People v. Meadows, 175 Mich.App. 355, 437 N.W.2d 405 (1989).

Plaintiff argues that the WDCA expressly or impliedly imposes a duty upon an employer to preserve evidence for the benefit of its employees' third-party claims. We find no language in the statutory provision supportive of plaintiff's position[179 MICHAPP 142] and note that plaintiff's strained and expansive construction is not buttressed by any legislative history or case law.

The role of the judiciary is to construe statutes as intended by the Legislature, not to rewrite them. No fair reading of the statute lends support to plaintiff's position that the Legislature intended to impose such a duty on employers. Although it is certainly in the employer's interest to preserve evidence, since an employer's workers' compensation lien will be reimbursed by a third-party recovery, we hold that the statute does not impose such a duty on employers.

IV

The lower court also dismissed plaintiff's claim alleging intentional interference with an economic advantage. Initially, we note that only two jurisdictions have recognized the tort of intentional interference with a prospective civil action by spoliation of evidence: Smith v. Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, 151 Cal.App.3d 491, 198 Cal.Rptr. 829 (1984), and Hazen v. Municipality of Anchorage, 718 P.2d 456 (Alas.1986). These courts stated that the underlying basis of this new tort is the "idea of unreasonable interference with the interests of others." Smith, 151 Cal.App.3d at p. 496, 198 Cal.Rptr. 829; Hazen at pp. 463-464. Unlike in the instant case, the defendants in Smith and Hazen had assumed a duty to preserve evidence. Thus, the liability which arose was from the breach of an assumed duty.

The Kansas Supreme Court in Koplin v. Rosel Well Perforators, Inc., supra, distinguished Smith and Hazen from the present situation in which the defendant had not assumed a duty. In Koplin, the plaintiff was injured while employed by the defendant company when a T-clamp failed due to an [179 MICHAPP 143] alleged defect. The injured plaintiff sued his employer, alleging that an agent of the defendant had intentionally destroyed the T-clamp immediately after the accident thereby preventing the plaintiff from bringing a third-party action against the manufacturer. The Kansas court initially noted that in both Smith and Hazen destruction of the evidence was to the direct benefit of the defendants:

Both Smith and Hazen are readily distinguishable from the case before us. In Smith, Abbott Ford had agreed with Smith's counsel that it would safeguard and preserve the automotive parts for inspection and use by the plaintiff, thereby creating a duty to do so. No such agreement exists in the case at bar. In Hazen, the destruction of an allegedly exculpatory tape would presumably make conviction easier for the prosecution. In both cases the evidence was destroyed by the adverse party in pending litigation to the direct benefit of such party. That is not the situation with which we are faced. To the contrary, it would be to the disadvantage of the defendant herein to destroy any evidence because as the employer of plaintiff it would have been subrogated to any recovery Koplin might have obtained to the extent of the workers' compensation payments made to Koplin. [Koplin, supra, 241 Kan. at 212, 734 P.2d 1177.]

Similarly, in the instant case it was not in the defendant's interest to destroy the remains of the electrical box since the same workers' compensation provision upon which the plaintiff relies grants the employer an economic interest as to third-party tort recoveries.

We hold that the lower court was correct in dismissing plaintiff's claim alleging intentional interference with an economic advantage. Under the facts of the instant case, we...

To continue reading

Request your trial
41 cases
  • Trevino v. Ortega
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • July 3, 1998
    ...v. Montgomery County, 64 Md.App. 202, 494 A.2d 761, 767-68 (1985) (existence of adequate remedies); Panich v. Iron Wood Prods. Corp., 179 Mich.App. 136, 445 N.W.2d 795, 797 (1989) (no cause of action under facts of case); Brown v. Hamid, 856 S.W.2d 51, 56-57 (Mo.1993) (existence of adequate......
  • Willard v. Caterpillar, Inc., F019296
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • November 30, 1995
    ...has no duty to preserve potential evidence for employee's possible third-party action]; accord, Panich v. Iron Wood Products Corp. (1989) 179 Mich.App. 136, 445 N.W.2d 795, 797; Diehl v. Rocky Mountain Communications (Tex.Ct.App.1991) 818 S.W.2d 183, 184; Edwards v. Louisville Ladder Co. (W......
  • Appalachian Railcar Services v. Boatright Enter.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan
    • March 25, 2008
    ...law does not recognize a cause of action for spoliation of evidence. MSJ at 23 (citing Panich v. Iron Wood Prods. Corp., 179 Mich.App. 136, 445 N.W.2d 795, 798 (1989) (Richard Allen Griffin, J.) (declining to recognize a tort of intentional interference with a prospective civil action by sp......
  • Smith v. Atkinson
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • February 4, 2000
    ...v. Montgomery County, 64 Md.App. 202, 494 A.2d 761, cert. denied, 304 Md. 299, 498 A.2d 1185 (1985); Panich v. Iron Wood Products Corp., 179 Mich.App. 136, 445 N.W.2d 795 (1989); Federated Mut. Ins. Co. v. Litchfield Precision Components, Inc., 456 N.W.2d 434 (Minn.1990); Baugher v. Gates R......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT