The Ohio Supreme Court has issued an important decision limiting a party’s ability to pursue an independent tort claim for spoliation of evidence. Ohio law excludes tort claims for negligent spoliation of evidence, but permits intentional spoliation claims. *Smith v. Howard Johnson Co*., 67 Ohio St.3d 28, 615 N.E.2d 1037 (1993). The elements of intentional spoliation of evidence have been: (1) pending or probable litigation involving the plaintiff was in existence, (2) defendant had knowledge that litigation existed or was probable, (3) willful destruction of evidence by defendant designed to disrupt plaintiff’s case, (4) disruption of plaintiff’s case, and (5) damages proximately caused by the defendant’s acts. https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bit.ly_2G7dDGH&d=DwIFaQ&c=pZJPUDQ3SB9JplYbifm4nt2lEVG5pWx2KikqINpWlZM&r=b5NZPQUb9_r2rQ3Zd74ATT3aSs9yKyRnJLOhqJvd7fE&m=r2rm6CrVuM4KaUq2aK5C6A4TP5bApKuB16H1W91Plvk&s=TntQZWgoPmDth5V1lpK9oIsC4OKp974Rqy-OWoN1E0g&e= https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bit.ly_2G7dDGH-2B&d=DwIFaQ&c=pZJPUDQ3SB9JplYbifm4nt2lEVG5pWx2KikqINpWlZM&r=b5NZPQUb9_r2rQ3Zd74ATT3aSs9yKyRnJLOhqJvd7fE&m=r2rm6CrVuM4KaUq2aK5C6A4TP5bApKuB16H1W91Plvk&s=LyYwBcnpLKwvvbruLqqe0WOsk4pqy9IrQ0pbiQyLn4w&e= -- Peterk Dallas, Tx [log in to unmask] Save our in-boxes! https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__emailcharter.org&d=DwIFaQ&c=pZJPUDQ3SB9JplYbifm4nt2lEVG5pWx2KikqINpWlZM&r=b5NZPQUb9_r2rQ3Zd74ATT3aSs9yKyRnJLOhqJvd7fE&m=r2rm6CrVuM4KaUq2aK5C6A4TP5bApKuB16H1W91Plvk&s=OnSV8oCm5jKmFte2pQ051m2kY-5cd_FX0Tg5gaXW2Uo&e= “If only there were a massive entity that I were forced to fund to tell me how I should live my life, since I’m so obviously incapable of deciding for myself.” M. Hashimoto List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message. mailto:[log in to unmask]
