Squire, Sanders Dempsey, David J. Young, David W. Alexander and Matthew G. Kallner, for petitioners Marriott Family Restaurant, Inc., Howard D. Johnson Company and Howard Johnson Company.

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:

"1. Does Ohio recognize a claim for intentional or negligent spoliation of evidence and/or tortious interference with prospective civil litigation?

"2. If so,

"a. What are the elements of such a claim; and

"b. Does such a claim exist between the parties to the primary action ( i.e., the action in which the spoliated evidence would have been used), or does it only exist against third-party spoliators?

"3. If the answer to 2(b) is that such a claim exists between the parties to the primary action, may such a claim be brought at the same time as the primary claim, or must the victim of spoliation await an adverse judgment?"

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.

MOYER, C.J., A.W. SWEENEY, DOUGLAS, DESHLER, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., concur.

DANA A. DESHLER, J., of the Tenth Appellate District, sitting for WRIGHT, J.

Summaries of

Smith v. Howard Johnson Co., Inc.

Supreme Court of Ohio

Aug 4, 1993

67 Ohio St. 3d 28 (Ohio 1993)

holding that " cause of action exists in tort for interference with or destruction of evidence"

Summary of this case from Timber Tech v. Home Ins. Co.

holding without explanation that a "cause of action exists in tort for interference with or destruction of evidence

Summary of this case from Goff v. Harold Ives Trucking Co.

recognizing tort action for intentional first-party and third-party spoliation

Summary of this case from Benson v. Penske Truck Leasing Corp.

recognizing a cause of action for both negligent and intentional spoliation of evidence by a third party

Summary of this case from Raymond v. Idaho State Police

recognizing a cause of action "between the parties to the primary action and against third parties" "for [willful] interference with or destruction of evidence"

Summary of this case from Hills v. United Parcel Service

recognizing a tort claim for interference with or destruction of evidence, and stating that willful destruction of evidence, designed to disrupt the opponent's case, is a necessary element to establish the tort

Summary of this case from Bass-Davis v. Davis

recognizing tort action for intentional first-party and third-party spoliation

Summary of this case from Gribben v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

recognizing a tort of spoliation of evidence by a party and against a third party

Summary of this case from Smith v. Atkinson

recognizing tort of willful spoliation of evidence against third parties in Ohio

Summary of this case from Phillips v. Owners Ins. Co.

In Smith v. Howard Johnson Company, Inc., 615 N.E.2d 1037, 1038 (Ohio 1993), a United States District Court certified to the Supreme Court of Ohio a list of questions concerning the existence of the tort of "intentional or negligent spoliation of evidence and/or tortious interference with prospective civil litigation."

Summary of this case from Swekel v. City of River Rouge

describing elements of a spoliation claim

Summary of this case from Johnson v. Plastek Indus.

referring to “pending or probable litigation ”

Summary of this case from Stillwagon v. City of Del.

In Smith, the Supreme Court of Ohio established the following elements for a claim of intentional spoliation of evidence: 1) pending or probable litigation involving the plaintiff; 2) knowledge by the 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.

Summary of this case from JARO TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC. v. GRANDY

In Smith v. Howard Johnson Co., Inc. (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 28, 615 N.E.2d 1037, the Ohio Supreme Court responded to a certified question from the United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, inquiring whether Ohio recognized a claim for intentional or negligent spoliation of evidence and/or tortious interference with prospective civil litigation, and if so, what were the elements of each such claim.

Summary of this case from Cuttill v. Pickney

In Smith v. Howard Johnson Co., Inc. (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 28, 29, 615 N.E.2d 1037, 1038, this court adopted the spoliation tort (placing this court among the minority of jurisdictions to have done so) in a single conclusory paragraph — ten lines of text summarily responding to three certified questions from a federal district court. Today's majority opinion, equally bereft of substantive legal analysis, overrules appellant's propositions of law with citation only to Smith, Grava v. Parkman Twp. (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 379, 653 N.E.2d 226, and the court of appeals' opinion.

Summary of this case from Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

In Smith v. Howard Johnson, supra, we held that a cause of action exists in tort for interference with or destruction of evidence, and that such a claim "may be brought at the same time as the primary action."

Summary of this case from Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

certifying that Ohio would recognize intentional spoliation claims

Summary of this case from Rosenblit v. Zimmerman

requiring "knowledge . . . that litigation exists or is probable"

Summary of this case from Torres v. El Paso Electric Co.

stating that a claim of intentional spoliation of evidence "may be brought at the same time as the primary action"

Summary of this case from Torres v. El Paso Electric Co.

defining elements of intentional spoliation

Summary of this case from Rodriguez v. Webb

identifying the elements of a spoliation claim as " pending or probable litigation involving the plaintiff, knowledge on the part of defendant that litigation exists or is probable, willful destruction of evidence by defendant designed to disrupt the plaintiff's case, disruption of the plaintiff's case, and damages proximately caused by the defendant's acts"

Summary of this case from Windsor Realty & Mgmt., Inc. v. Ne. Ohio Reg'l Sewer Dist.

In Smith, the court delineated the elements for evidence spoliation: (1) pending or probable litigation involving the plaintiff, (2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that litigation exists or is probable, (3) willful destruction of evidence by the defendant designed to disrupt plaintiff's case, and (4) damages proximately caused by the defendant's acts.

Summary of this case from Woodell v. Ormet Primary Aluminum Corp.

Summary of this case from Hess v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.

describing elements of spoliation claim

Summary of this case from Jeffrey Mining Products, L.P. v. Left Fork Mining Co.

In Smith v. Howard Johnson Co., Inc. (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 28, the Ohio Supreme Court responded to a certified question from the United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, inquiring whether Ohio recognized a claim for intentional or negligent spoliation of evidence and/or tortious interference with prospective civil litigation, and if so, what were the elements of each such claim.

Summary of this case from White v. Ford Motor Co.

Smith v. Howard Johnson Co., Inc.

Summary

Opinion

Smith v. Howard Johnson Co., Inc.

Smith v. Howard Johnson Co., Inc.

Case Details

Citations

Citing Cases

Smith v. Howard Johnson Co., Inc.

Summary

Opinion

Smith v. Howard Johnson Co., Inc.

Smith v. Howard Johnson Co., Inc.

Case Details

CitationsCopy Citations

Citing Cases

Citations