Killings v. Enterprise Leasing Co.

Supreme Court of Alabama · Torts

TortsSpoliation of evidenceNegligencethird-party spoliationnegligenceduty to preserve evidenceactual knowledge of pending or potential litigationagreement to preserve

Facts

Killings was injured when the leased van he was driving lost its right rear wheel and crashed. Soon after the accident, his attorney sent Enterprise Leasing letters requesting that the van be preserved and, according to the attorney's affidavit, Enterprise Leasing's claims representative assured him that the van would remain where it was and would not be moved without notice. More than two years later, Enterprise Leasing had the van moved and sold for scrap without notifying Killings, and it was destroyed. Killings then sued Enterprise Leasing for third-party spoliation after the underlying defendants were dismissed.

Issue

Whether Enterprise Leasing was entitled to summary judgment on Killings's third-party negligent spoliation claim because there was no genuine issue of material fact as to actual knowledge of pending or potential litigation, duty to preserve the van, or the van's status as vital evidence.

Rule

Under Smith v. Atkinson, a plaintiff asserting third-party spoliation must prove the ordinary negligence elements and also show: (1) the defendant spoliator had actual knowledge of pending or potential litigation; (2) a duty to preserve was imposed through a voluntary undertaking, an agreement, or a specific request; and (3) the missing evidence was vital to the plaintiff's pending or potential action. A third party has no general duty to preserve evidence, but if it agrees to preserve the evidence, it assumes that duty.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

After a scaffolding collapse in Birmingham, Dana Mercer’s lawyer sent Ridgeway Equipment Storage a letter stating that the collapsed scaffold was critical to a contemplated products-liability and negligent-maintenance suit and asking that it not be altered or discarded without notice. Eight months later, Ridgeway discarded the scaffold, arguing no lawsuit had yet been filed when it did so.

On Dana’s negligent spoliation claim against Ridgeway, which is the strongest argument against summary judgment for Ridgeway on the knowledge element?

Explanation. Under the majority opinion, the spoliator must have actual knowledge of pending or potential litigation. Actual knowledge of potential litigation is enough; knowledge that a filed lawsuit already exists is not required. A preservation letter expressly identifying contemplated litigation is strong evidence creating at least a fact issue on this element. (Derived from Killings v. Enterprise Leasing Co. (n.d.).)