Smith v. Howard Johnson Co., Inc. - Ohio Supreme Court Opinion - Ohio Supreme Court Decision

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Ohio Court Cases and Opinions - Ohio Legal Research
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -RESEARCH

This court case was taken from the web sites of the Ohio Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of
Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27,
1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice
Thomas J. Moyer.
Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's
Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Attention: Walter S.
Kobalka, Reporter, or Deborah J. Barrett, Administrative
Assistant. Tel.: (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010.
Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome.
NOTE: Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the
full texts of the opinions after they have been released
electronically to the public. The reader is therefore advised
to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West
Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions.
The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume
and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound
volumes of the Ohio Official Reports.

Smith et al. v. Howard Johnson Company, Inc. et al.
[Cite as Smith v. Howard Johnson Co., Inc. (1993), Ohio
St.3d .]
Torts -- Cause of action exists in tort for interference with
or destruction of evidence -- Elements of claim for
interference with or destruction of evidence -- Such claim
recognized between parties to the primary action and
against third parties -- Such claim may be brought at same
time as primary action.
(No. 92-1335 -- Submitted June 1, 1993 -- Decided August
4, 1993.)
On Order from the United States District Court, Southern
District of Ohio, Eastern Division, Certifying a Question of
State Law, No. C-2-90-230.

Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease and Robert E. Tait, for
respondents William R. and Kathryn W. Smith.
Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, David J. Young, David W.
Alexander and Matthew G. Kallner, for petitioners Marriott
Family Restaurant, Inc., Howard D. Johnson Company and Howard
Johnson Company.

The United States District Court, Southern District of
Ohio, Eastern Division, pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.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 plaintiff's
case, (4) disruption of the plaintiff's 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.