Law Offices of John C. Lane
Call us at: 201-848-6000
New Jersey Appellate Court Clarifies Use of Res Ipsa Loquitur, Spoliation of Evidence Rules
A cold January night amid freezing rain and a slippery roadway on the New Jersey Turnpike set the stage for an accident whose facts were never fully learned. There were three cars and two tractor-trailers. One car and one of the trucks left the scene without the drivers being identified or interviewed. Mark Cockerline lost his life that evening. For some reason he stopped his car in the shoulder, got out, and jumped over the guardrail to his death, one hundred feet below. His estate sued the owners of the only two identified vehicles, a car driven by Erika Menendez and a tractor-trailer operated by Kevin Clark, a driver for UPS. The appellate opinion in Cockerline v. Menendez deals with evidentiary rules which were used against UPS in the trial court, the rule of res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself) and the doctrine of spoliation of evidence. The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, held that the res ipsa doctrine was used improperly, but that the spoliation sanction was legally appropriate.
The trial court charged the jury that if they find that the defendant had exclusive control of the instrumentality causing the occurrence, and that the incident would not have occurred if the defendant had exercised reasonable care and plaintiff did not contribute to the accident, then they may infer that the negligence of Kevin Clark was a proximate cause of the death of Mark Cockerline. This was an improper charge. “If res ipsa loquitur is applicable, it only permits the jury, if it deems it appropriate, to infer that a defendant was negligent. Res ipsa loquitur does not permit an inference of proximate cause, which is a wholly separate issue.”
Spoliation of evidence came into play because, the courts say, UPS had the capability of maintaining information from the truck’s “in-vehicle information system” but failed to do so despite its own procedures. Spoliation of evidence occurs when pertinent evidence is destroyed, thereby interfering with the ability of the other party to prove its case or defense. Remedies can result in striking of pleadings, a separate tort action for fraudulent concealment, discovery sanctions, or an adverse trial inference against the party that caused the loss of evidence. The trial inference “permits the jury to infer that the evidence destroyed or concealed would not have been favorable to the spoliator.” The upper court approved use of this jury charge, especially since plaintiff had almost no evidence from which to reconstruct the accident.
The appellate court seemed undeterred by the fact that the State Police found no evidence that the UPS truck came in contact with the Cockerline car, or by the fact that Mr. Cockerline apparently jumped over the guardrail to his death. Nevertheless, the legal discussions are of interest and provide guidance to trial judges and attorneys. The Supreme Court of New Jersey has recently declined to hear a further appeal.
© August 2010, Law Offices of John C. Lane
For comments or questions on this article email: info@jclane.com
