5/17/2023 0 Comments Rigidply rafterIn Schroeder, the Commonwealth Court held that dismissal is appropriate whenever a plaintiff fails to produce the allegedly defective product for defense inspection. Department of Transportation, 676 A.2d 727 (Pa.Commw.1996), appeal granted, 546 Pa. In deciding whether dismissal was required under the spoliation doctrine, the trial court followed Schroeder v. The trial court granted summary judgment for Rigidply and Mitek under the spoliation doctrine, holding, inter alia, that “a products liability action may not go forward without preservation of the allegedly defective product and product fragments.” Trial court opinion at 4. Damaged portions of the roof remained on the original plaintiff's property until sometime shortly before December 13, 1995, when they were removed and destroyed. When Tri-County refused to pay reconstruction costs, the original plaintiff sued Tri-County who, on February 16, 1995, filed a complaint for indemnification and contribution against Rigidply and Mitek. Deposition of Galen Weaver 5/10/96 at 68. During reconstruction, Tri-County removed both broken and unbroken portions of the roof and placed them in a nearby field. Deposition of James Bondor 12/13/95 at 11 deposition of Stephen Cabler 12/13/95 at 18 deposition of Joseph Carr, Jr. Mitek, on the other hand, was not notified of the collapse prior to the removal of the trusses and did not investigate the site before the roof was reconstructed. Deposition of Lamar Troup 11/9/95 at 26 deposition of Galen Weaver 5/10/96 at 89. Before this work was commenced, Rigidply representatives inspected the site. Later, Tri-County reconstructed the roof. Tri-County was immediately notified of the collapse and that same morning erected reinforcements to prevent further collapse of the barn. These trusses were used in the construction of a hog barn roof that collapsed early in the morning of March 4, 1994. Rigidply supplied Tri-County with roof trusses manufactured according to a design reviewed and approved by Mitek. We will only affirm a grant of summary judgment “in those cases which are free and clear of doubt.” Id. In reviewing a grant of summary judgment, an appellate court “must view the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and all doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact must be resolved against the moving party.” State Farm Auto. Summary judgment is also warranted “if, after completion of discovery relevant to the motion, including the production of expert reports, an adverse party who will bear the burden of proof at trial has failed to produce sufficient evidence of facts essential to the cause of action or defense” to submit the question to a jury. Summary judgment is appropriate where “there is no genuine issue of any material fact as to a necessary element of the cause of action or defense which could be established by discovery or expert report.” Pa.R.C.P. The sole issue on this appeal is whether the trial court correctly concluded the so-called “spoliation doctrine” requires the entry of summary judgment against Tri-County. The trial court found that Tri-County's claim was barred by its failure to produce key evidence for defense inspection. Tri-County cross-claimed against Rigidply and Mitek on strict product liability and negligence theories. The roof was constructed by appellant Tri-County Confinement Systems, Inc. On March 4, 1994, the roof of a hog barn owned by the original plaintiff in this action collapsed. We hold that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment based on spoliation of evidence. This appeal is from a trial court order granting summary judgment for appellees, Rigidply Rafters (Rigidply) and Mitek Industries (Mitek). Kadel, Lancaster, for Mitek Industries, appellee. Powell, West Hazleton, for Rigidply Rafters, appellee. Decided: February 27, 1998īefore FORD ELLIOTT, EAKIN and OLSZEWSKI, JJ. Appeal of TRI-COUNTY CONFINEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. RIGIDPLY RAFTERS, Brubaker Builders, Paul D.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |