Following an accident in 1996, the plaintiff’s counsel sent a letter to Daimler Chrysler notifying Daimler Chrysler of the accident and of the airbag’s failure to deploy. Daimler Chrysler replied to Flury’s letter, requesting the location of the vehicle for inspection purposes. Flury’s counsel never responded to the letter. Around six months later, the vehicle was sold off by the plaintiff’s insurance carrier as scrap. Years later, the plaintiff filed suit. The district court instructed the jury to apply a rebuttable presumption that the evidence not preserved was unfavorable to the party responsible for spoliation. The Eleventh Circuit reversed, finding that no remedy short of dismissal would suffice. See Flury v. Daimler Chrysler, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 21515 (11th Cir. Oct. 5, 2005).
Leave a Reply