Opinion · Ohio Supreme Court

Smith v. Howard Johnson Co.

67 Ohio St. 3d 28

Type
Opinion
Court
Ohio Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ohio
Date
1993-08-04
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • 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”
  • 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 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

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Smith v. Howard Johnson Co.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
210 opinions

The United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, pursuant to S.CtPrac.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 plaintiffs case, (4) disruption of the plaintiffs 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.