[MM_Access_Decision access='false']

1. Plaintiff has a potential civil action;
2. Defendant has a legal or contractual duty to preserve evidence that is relevant to the potential action;
3. The evidence is destroyed;
4. The destruction of the evidence significantly impairs Plaintiff’s ability to prove her case;
5. A causal relationship between the evidence destruction and Plaintiff’s inability to prove her case; and
6. Damages.

Subscribers To The Florida Litigation Guide Can See:

• The rest of the elements for this cause of action;
• The citations to the most recent state and federal court cases citing the cause of action;
• The statute of limitations; and
• The defenses to this cause of action.

Click Here To See A Sample Chapter From The Guide

Subscribe to The Florida Litigation Guide To Access Everything!

[/MM_Access_Decision] [MM_Access_Decision access='true']

1. Plaintiff has a potential civil action;
2. Defendant has a legal or contractual duty to preserve evidence that is relevant to the potential action;
3. The evidence is destroyed;
4. The destruction of the evidence significantly impairs Plaintiff’s ability to prove her case;
5. A causal relationship between the evidence destruction and Plaintiff’s inability to prove her case; and
6. Damages.

There is no cause of action against a first-party defendant for negligent destruction/ spoliation of evidence. Ferere v. Shure, 65 So.3d 1141, 1145 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011), citing Martino v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 908 So.2d 342, 347 (Fla. 2005) (distinguishing between first party-defendant sponsored and third-party spoliation claims). See also Carvajal v. Walgreen Co., No. 10-23931-CIV, 2011 WL 2531204, at *2 (S.D. Fla. June 24, 2011).

A Plaintiff need not prove that she would have succeeded in her potential civil action but for the destruction of evidence, but only that the destruction of evidence precluded her from attempting to prove her case. Miller v. Allstate Ins. Co., 573 So.2d 24, 31 n.12 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), rev. denied, 581 So. 2d 1307 (Fla. 1991).

---

FLORIDA STATE COURTS

Second District: Jost v. Lakeland Reg’l Med. Ctr., 844 So.2d 656, 657 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), rev. dismissed, 888 So.2d 622 (Fla. 2004).


Third District: Miller v. Allstate Ins. Co., 650 So.2d 671, 675 n.1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Continental Ins. Co. v. Herman, 576 So.2d 313, 315 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), rev. denied, 598 So.2d 76 (Fla. 1991).


Fourth District: Toole v. State, 270 So.3d 388 n.123 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019); Gayer v. Fine Line Const. & Elec., Inc., 970 So.2d 424, 426 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007).


Fifth District: Shamrock-Shamrock, Inc. v. Remark, 271 So. 3d 1200, 1203 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019), review denied, No. SC19-1106, 2019 WL 5290225 (Fla. Oct. 17, 2019)

FLORIDA FEDERAL COURTS

Eleventh Circuit: Green Leaf Nursery v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., 341 F.3d 1292, 1308 (11th Cir. 2003).


Southern District: Guo v. Rosen, 2021 WL 5168297, *8-9 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 2, 2021); Weber v. Carnival Corp., 2021 WL 3371913, *3 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 3, 2021); Miller v. Ruiz, No. 1:16-cv-23465-COOKE/TORRES, 2016 WL 6608681, at *3, (S.D. Fla. Nov. 9, 2016); New Wave Innovations, Inc. v. Greenberg, No. 14-24544-Civ-COOKE/TORRES, 2015 WL 5118130, at *5 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 31, 2015).


Middle District: Steadfast Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., No. 3:16-CV-1574-J-34JBT, 2017 WL 10434413, at *3 (M.D. Fla. July 24, 2017); Nelson v. Amica Mut. Ins. Co., No. 6:15–cv–160–Orl–41TBS, 2015 WL 4507609, at *2 (M.D. Fla. July 24, 2015).


Northern District: Miles v. United States, No. 3:14cv360/MCR/CJK, 2015 WL 11109793, at *2 (N.D. Fla. Oct. 19, 2015); Silhan v. Allstate Ins. Co., 236 F. Supp. 2d 1303, 1309 (N.D. Fla. 2002).

REFERENCES

Restatement (Second) of Torts ‘ 281 et seq. (1965) (General Negligence Principles)

---

2 Defenses to Claim for Negligent Destruction of Evidence

(1) Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(d) (pleading affirmative defenses), and other standard defenses. See § 1.

(2) Statute of Limitations: Fla. Stat. § 95.11(4)(a) (2023) (two years); Fla. Stat. § 95.11(3)(a) (2022)(four years for claims accruing prior to March 24, 2023).

(3) Sovereign immunity shields a government from a claim for negligent destruction of evidence absent the creation of a special duty to a particular citizen to maintain the evidence. Brown v. City of Delray Beach, 652 So.2d 1150, 1154 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).

(4) Plaintiff’s contributory negligence serves to diminish the recovery of damages through principles of comparative negligence by apportioning defendant’s degree of negligence against that of the plaintiff. Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So.2d 431, 437-440 (Fla. 1973).

(5) “[T]ort liability in Florida is premised on pure comparative negligence, which means that a jury should apportion fault between the plaintiff, defendant, and any third parties alleged to have been at fault, and render an award based on a defendant’s percentage of fault in causing an injury.” Williams v. Davis, 974 So. 2d 1052, 1061 n.1 (Fla. 2007); Fla. Stat. § 768.81(2).  For negligence claims that accrue on or after March 24, 2023, Florida will apply a comparative negligence standard, which bars a plaintiff from recovery if the plaintiff is more than fifty (50) percent at fault. § 768.81(6), Fla. Stat. (2023).

(6) Plaintiff’s injuries were a result of an intervening, superseding cause. Golden Gate Homes, LC v. Levey, 59 So.3d 275, 281 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 440, 441 (1965).

(7) Execution of a valid release is an absolute bar to liability. See, e.g., Bruce v. Heiman, 392 So.2d 1026, 1027-1028 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Beck-Ford Constr., LLC v. TCA Global Credit Master Fund, LP, 240 F. Supp. 3d 1256,1279 (S.D. Fla. 2017).

(8) Consent is a defense to negligence claims. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 892 (1965).

[/MM_Access_Decision]