Smith v. Howard Johnson Co.

holding that “[a] cause of action exists in tort for interference with or destruction of evidence” | stating that a claim of intentional spoliation of evidence “may be brought at the same time as the primary action” | stating that a claim of intentional spoliation of evidence "may be brought at the same time as the primary action" | holding without explanation that a “cause of action exists in tort for interference with or destruction of evidence” | recognizing a tort of spoliation of evidence by a party and against a third party | recognizing a tort of spoliation of evidence by a party and against a third party | recognizing a cause of action “between the parties to the primary action and against third parties” "for [willful] interference with or destruction of evidence” | recognizing a cause of action "between the parties to the primary action and against third parties" "for [willful] interference with or destruction of evidence" | recognizing a cause of action for both negligent and intentional spoliation of evidence by a third party | 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 | recognizing tort of wilful spoliation of evidence against third parties in Ohio | recognizing tort action for intentional first-party and third-party spoliation | certifying that Ohio would recognize intentional spoliation claims | identifying the elements of a spoliation claim as “(1) pending or probable litigation involving the plaintiff, (2) knowledge on the part of defendant that litigation exists or is probable, (3 | requiring “knowledge ... that litigation exists or is probable ” (emphasis added) | requiring "knowledge... that litigation exists or is probable " (emphasis added) | identifying the elements of a spoliation claim as “(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 | In Ohio, "[a] cause of action exists in tort for interference with or destruction of evidence.” | stating Alaska recognizes intentional spoliation tort where defendant altered tapes | Alaska recognizing intentional spoliation tort where defendant altered tapes | defining elements of intentional spoliation