Spain Mexico
Philadelphia, PA Cherry Hill, NJ New York, NY Roseland, NJ 1-866-LOCKSLAW
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn
Locks Law Firm
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn
Get Started
  • No win, no fee
  • Free consultation
  • Home
  • About
    • About Us
    • The Team
    • Office Locations
    • Newsroom
    • FAQ
  • About
    • About Us
    • The Team
    • Office Locations
    • Newsroom
    • FAQ
  • Practice Areas
  • Practice Areas
    • All Practice Areas
    • Medical Malpractice and Nursing Home Abuse
    • Environmental and Toxic Torts
    • Catastrophic Personal Injuries
    • Dangerous Drugs & Devices
  • Testimonials
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • Get Started
  • Spain Mexico   Spanish
  • About
    • About Us
    • The Team
    • Office Locations
    • Newsroom
    • FAQ

    One of the most prominent personal injury law firms in the tri-state region, the Locks Law Firm is steadfastly committed to protecting the rights of seriously injured victims.

    Free Case Evaluation
  • Medical Malpractice and Nursing Home Abuse
    • Nursing Home Abuse and Neglect
    • Hospital Acquired Infections
    • Medication Errors
    • Misdiagnosis / Failure to Diagnose
    • Surgical Errors
    • Needle Stick - CRPS

    Medical malpractice is any act by a health care provider that deviates from accepted standards of medical care and results in the personal injury, disability, or wrongful death of a patient. Nursing home abuse or negligence can take many forms. It can include physical, sexual, and emotional abuse, neglect, negligent care, and even financial exploitation.

    Free Case Evaluation
  • Environmental and Toxic Torts
    • Asbestos and Mesothelioma
    • Benzene
    • Chemical Exposure
    • Manganese Exposure
    • Natural Resource Damages
    • Toxic Injuries
    • Workplace Exposure
    • Camp Lejeune Water Contamination

    Exposure to toxic chemicals in the workplace or environment can cause serious, sometimes fatal health problems, including cancer.

    Free Case Evaluation
  • Catastrophic Personal Injuries
    • Burns and Chemical Burns
    • Traumatic Brain Injuries
    • Spinal Cord Injuries
    • Wrongful Death

    Catastrophic personal injuries include brain and spinal cord injuries, severe burns, carbon monoxide poisoning and, most seriously, death.

    Free Case Evaluation
  • Dangerous Drugs & Devices
    • Allergan Breast Implant Recall
    • Hernia Mesh
    • IVC Filters
    • Philips Respironics Lawsuit
    • Zantac (ranitidine)
    • NEC Baby Formula

    At the Locks Law Firm, our pharmaceutical litigation and defective drug lawyers are committed to serving personal injury victims and are well versed in the product liability laws that protect consumers.

    Free Case Evaluation

Locks Law Firm

Philadelphia, PA

(215) 893-0100

Cherry Hill, NJ

(856) 663-8200

New York, NY

(212) 838-3333

Roseland, NJ

(973) 671-1940

Locks Law Firm

Philadelphia, PA

The Curtis Center
Suite 720 East
601 Walnut Street

Cherry Hill, NJ

801 North Kings Highway

New York, NY

800 Third Ave 11th Floor

Roseland, NJ

3 Becker Farm Road
Suite 105

Locks Law Firm

Philadelphia, PA

[email protected]

Cherry Hill, NJ

[email protected]

New York, NY

[email protected]

Roseland, NJ

[email protected]

Blog

Excellent Opinion on Spoliation of Video Surveillance in Slip-and-Fall

The Superior Court has just issued an excellent precedential opinion granting a new trial to a plaintiff after the trial court refused to give an adverse inference charge on spoliation (destruction of evidence). Marshall v. Brown’s IA, LLC, 2019 WL 1372399 (Pa. Super., March 27, 2019). The opinion is not only very helpful on video surveillance in slip-and-fall cases, but it has comments that could be useful in any video surveillance case.

Plaintiff claimed she slipped on water in a ShopRite supermarket. About two weeks later her counsel wrote ShopRite and demanded that they retain surveillance video for 6 hours prior to the accident and 3 hours afterwards. This retention letter is of crucial importance in any case where video surveillance is suspected. The Court’s opinion refers to “the ubiquitous use of video surveillance.”

The video did show the slip and fall. The video did not show water on the floor at the time of the accident.

The plaintiff’s lawyer’s request for a total of 9 hours of video was not honored. At trial, a ShopRite employee testified that their “rule of thumb” was to preserve 20 minutes before and after a fall. However, for an unknown reason, ShopRite preserved 37 minutes before and 20 minutes after.

The trial court found no bad faith by the store in allowing other parts of the video to be overwritten. The trial court refused plaintiff’s request to charge the jury on spoliation. The jury found for the defense. On appeal, the Superior Court rejected ShopRite’s explanations and granted a new trial due to the failure to charge on spoliation.

ShopRite argued that since the retained portion of the video did not show the water, it would be a “fool’s errand” to go back several hours as requested. The Superior Court wrote that even if the video did not capture the precise cause of the spill or show the liquid on the floor, the video could still have probative value. It might show someone dropping something. Events occurring well in advance of the plaintiff’s accident might be relevant to defendant’s knowledge or constructive notice or whether defendant exercised reasonable care to keep the premises safe. The video might show someone else slipping. Since employees wore uniforms, the video could be instructive as to when an employee last entered the area of the spill.

The Superior Court wrote that the retention letter put ShopRite on notice to preserve the video as it was arguably relevant to impending litigation. The Court found “conspicuously absent” testimony that anyone from ShopRite watched the requested 6 hours in order to determine that it had no relevant evidence.

In response to ShopRite’s argument that preserving 9 hours of video was time consuming and expensive, the Court said that if ShopRite had told this to plaintiff’s counsel, ShopRite might have permitted plaintiff’s counsel to watch the entire requested footage prior to deletion. If the parties could not then agree on what to preserve, either party could have asked a court to resolve the dispute.

The Superior Court wrote that the record arguably supported a finding of bad faith. And the Superior Court explicitly stated that the finding of no bad faith did not negate or excuse spoliation. Spoliation may be negligent, reckless or intentional. The good or bad faith of the destruction goes to the type of sanction to be imposed.

In sum, Marshall has much excellent language undercutting defenses to spoliation of video surveillance. We recommend liberal use of this opinion, not only in slip-and-fall cases, but in any case where a defendant tries to justify destruction of video surveillance.

Jonathan W. Miller

Jonathan W. Miller

Partner
Philadelphia Office
Jonathan has specialized in complex cases, legal issues and appeals for over 40 years. Recent cases include medical malpractice and civil rights violations.
April 10, 2019 Jonathan W. Miller

Tell Us About Your Case

If you can read this, please avoid filling the following input field or your submission may be marked as spam.
Thank you for contacting us! We will be in touch with you shortly.
Uh oh. There was a problem processing your request. Please try again!
Previous Entry

Buca Di Beppo Announces Nationwide Data Breach Exposing Customer Credit and Debit Card Information

Next Entry

Three Ways to Catch an Out-of-State Corporation, Including Breaking News

Recent Entries

  • Locks Law Firm Announces New Partner: Victoria A. Schall, Esq.
  • Camp Lejeune and the PACT Act
  • Locks Law Firm Partner Al Anthony Helps Raise Over $1.3 Million for Pillar Care Continuum
  • Jennifer Emmons Named Managing Partner
  • Stephen M. Tatonetti Joins the Locks Law Firm Team

Archive

  • January2023
  • August2022
  • February2022
  • January2022
  • September2021
  • August2021
  • July2021
  • March2021
  • February2021
  • January2021
  • November2020
  • September2020
  • July2020
  • June2020
  • May2020
  • April2020
  • March2020
  • February2020
  • January2020
  • December2019
  • November2019
  • October2019
  • September2019
  • August2019
  • July2019
  • June2019
  • May2019
  • April2019
  • March2019
  • February2019
  • January2019
  • December2018
  • November2018
  • October2018
  • September2018
  • August2018
  • July2018
  • June2018
  • May2018
  • April2018
  • March2018
  • February2018
  • January2018
  • December2017
  • November2017
  • October2017
  • September2017
  • August2017
  • July2017
  • June2017
  • May2017
  • April2017
  • March2017
  • February2017
  • January2017
  • December2016
  • November2016
  • October2016
  • September2016
  • August2016
  • July2016
  • June2016
  • May2016
  • April2016
  • March2016
  • February2016
  • January2016
  • December2015
  • November2015
  • October2015
  • September2015
  • August2015
  • May2015
  • April2015
  • March2015
  • February2015
  • January2015
  • December2014
  • November2014
  • October2014
  • August2014
  • June2014
  • April2014
  • February2014
  • August2013
  • July2013
  • June2013
  • February2013
  • December2012
  • November2012
  • October2012
  • September2012
  • August2012
  • July2012
  • June2012
  • September2011
  • January2011
  • November2010
  • September2010
  • August2010
  • July2010
  • June2010
  • March2010
  • February2010
  • January2010
  • December2009
  • November2009
  • September2009
  • August2009
  • July2009
  • April2009
  • March2009
  • February2009
  • January2009
  • July2008
  • June2008
  • May2008
1-866-LOCKSLAW
[email protected]
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn YouTube
2021 Best Lawyers
Martindale-Hubble Award Ten Leaders

Copyright ©2023 Locks Law Firm. Made by Mindlark.

Locks Law Firm only provides legal advice after having entered into an attorney client relationship, which our website specifically does not create. Conversations that originate from website messaging, chat or other two way web based engagement  do not create an attorney client relationship. It is imperative that any action taken be done on the advice of counsel. Because every case is different, the description of awards and cases previously handled do not guarantee a similar outcome in current or future cases. The firm practices law in Pennsylvania, New Jersey & New York as Locks Law Firm. Super Lawyers, Best Lawyers in America and other organizations that rate attorneys are not designations that have been approved by the State Supreme Courts or the American Bar Association.