Personal Injury Accident Claim Seeking Damages After the Plaintiff Sat On a Faulty Chair that Collapsed*

The plaintiffs in this personal injury accident claim are Seamus and Connie Sintaluta. The defendants are Sante Ronson and Co., and Frontload International et al.

The plaintiffs are asking for judgment relating to liability against the defendant Sante Ronson or for an order of preclusion or sanction against them for intentionally spoiling all physical evidence of the plaintiff's accident.

The second defendant, Frontload International, asks for dismissal of the complaint against it, as there is no evidence of negligence on their part.

The court said there is no dispute in this personal injury accident claim that the plaintiff sat in a cast iron rocker patio chair made by Frontload International. Workers at Sante Ronson put it together and it was on display in their store. When the plaintiff sat in the chair it collapsed.

The workers who put that chair together said there were left over parts when they were finished. The pieces left over included a T-rocker, which if not installed on the chair made it unsafe.

After the accident a store security officer took pictures, filled out a complete accident form and figured out the chair was missing parts. A store worker brought over a bag of parts that were left in a drawer. The security officer tagged them as evidence.

The collapsed chair was also kept for evidence, reported to the loss prevention department and the store security cameras checked for footage of the incident. There were two cameras that showed the accident and their tapes were secured as evidence.

Four days later Sante Ronson's insurance carrier came to inspect the site of this personal injury accident claim and told the security officer to keep all the evidence. The store manager threw out the chair, the video tapes, the pictures and the bag of leftover parts.

The court said Ronson workers put a defective chair on display that caused the plaintiff's accident. The plaintiff's motion for judgment against Ronson based on negligence is granted.

In this personal injury accident case, the court said Frontload argued the destruction of all the evidence, including a set of assembly instructions that would prove their liability or not, prejudiced their ability to defend themselves. Where a "defendant's proof in opposition is not based upon personal knowledge of what occurred, it is insufficient to create a material question of fact."

The court had to decide whether Frontload met its burden of proving entitlement to summary judgment. The defendant does not meet its burden by noting gaps in its opponent's proof.

Frontload had to prove it was free from negligence to shift the burden to the plaintiffs to raise a material question of fact. There is a question of fact as to whether the shipment of that patio set had instructions with a T-rocker warning.

The court concludes Frontload failed to meet its burden. Their motion is denied.

With regard to the evidence being destroyed, the court indicated that when a party claims evidence has been destroyed they may seek sanctions. The court has discretion in determining what sanctions, if any, should be given.

In this case Sante Rosen was aware of the evidentiary value of the chair, the bag of parts and the instructions well in advance of their destruction.

However, Frontload failed to establish that the destroyed instructions were (1) shipped with the chair, and (2) used by the store employee to assemble the chair. These instructions were described as having a T-rocker warning but there is no evidentiary link of those instructions to the actual assembly of the chair.

Frontload's motion and the plaintiff's motion to impose sanctions for destroying the evidence was therefore denied.