Smith v. Howard Johnson Co., Inc.
| Decision Date | 04 August 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-1335,92-1335 |
| Parties | SMITH et al. v. HOWARD JOHNSON COMPANY, INC. et al. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease and Robert E. Tait, Columbus, for respondents William R. and Kathryn W. Smith.
Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, David J. Young, David W. Alexander and Matthew G. Kallner, Columbus, for petitioners Marriott Family Restaurant, Inc., Howard D. Johnson Co. and Howard Johnson Co.
The United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. XVI, has certified the following questions to us:
We answer the three questions as follows: (1) A cause of action exists in tort for interference with or destruction of evidence; (2a) the elements of a claim for interference with or destruction of evidence are (1) pending or probable litigation involving the plaintiff, (2) knowledge on the part of defendant that litigation exists or is probable, (3) willful destruction of evidence by defendant designed to disrupt the plaintiff's case, (4) disruption of the plaintiff's case, and (5) damages proximately caused by the defendant's acts; (2b) such a claim should be recognized between the parties to the primary action and against third parties; and (3) such a claim may be brought at the same time as the primary action. See Viviano v. CBS, Inc. (1991), 251 N.J.Super. 113, 126, 597 A.2d 543, 550.
DANA A. DESHLER, J., of the Tenth Appellate District, sitting for WRIGHT, J.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thermodyn Corp. v. 3M Co., No. 3:07 CV 2491.
...Ed Schmidt Pontiac-GMC Truck, Inc. v. Chrysler Motors Co., 575 F.Supp.2d 837, 840 (N.D.Ohio 2008) (quoting Smith v. Howard Johnson, 67 Ohio St.3d 28, 29, 615 N.E.2d 1037 (1993)). "[W]illfulness contemplates not only an intentional commission of the act, but also a wrongful commission of the......
-
Stillwagon v. City of Del., Case No. 2:14–cv–807
...(4) disruption of the plaintiff's case, and (5) damages proximately caused by the defendant's acts." Smith v. Howard Johnson Co., Inc. , 67 Ohio St.3d 28, 615 N.E.2d 1037, 1038 (1993). In a spoliation case, the term "willful" reflects " ‘an intentional and wrongful commission of the act.’ "......
-
Gliatta v. Tectum, Inc.
...actions. A claim for spoliation of evidence may be brought at the same time as the primary action. Smith v. Howard Johnson Company, Inc., 67 Ohio St.3d 28, 29, 615 N.E.2d 1037 (1993). Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiff's claim because she "has not alleged facts to demonstrate that Tectum ......
-
Trevino v. Ortega
...(1997) (negligent); Coleman v. Eddy Potash, Inc., 120 N.M. 645, 905 P.2d 185, 189 (1995) (intentional); Smith v. Howard Johnson Co., 67 Ohio St.3d 28, 615 N.E.2d 1037 (1993) (intentional).4 Embracery is "[t]he crime of attempting to influence a jury corruptly to one side or the other." BLAC......