Spoliation and intent

[Jim Choate]

BU provided two cases, lost doctors records and a car.

In both cases spoliation occurred not because records in general (or cars
in general) are lost but because those specific ones were lost. They were
in effect unique. It goes back to 'intent'.

Review BU's cites and then ask yourself this (let's take the doctors
records example specifically)...

Had the record that was lost been one of a hundred that were lost in a box
would spoliation charges have been filed? Most likely not, because there
was nothing singularly interesting about that record in that context.

In the other case, it wasn't that the company lost several cars and this
particular one happened to be of interest, but rather that was the only(!)
car that was lost.

In both of these cites it was the singularity of the loss that spoke to
intent and spoliation.


 --
    ____________________________________________________________________

                Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night:
                God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light.

                                          B.A. Behrend

       The Armadillo Group       ,::////;::-.          James Choate
       Austin, Tx               /:'///// ``::>/|/      ravage at ssz.com
       www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
                           -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------