MICHAEL MOHAMMAD MOGHARI, APPELLANT,
v.
ANTHONY ABRAHAM CHEVROLET COMPANY, LTD., APPELLEE
MICHAEL MOHAMMAD MOGHARI, APPELLANT,
ANTHONY ABRAHAM CHEVROLET COMPANY, LTD., APPELLEE
699 So. 2d 278
Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1997)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
The doctrine of spoliation arises when it is alleged that a crucial piece of evidence is unavailable at the time of trial due to action by one or the other of the parties. See, eg., Sponco Mfg. v. Alcover, 656 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), rev. dismissed, 679 So. 2d 771 (Fla.1996). In the instant ease, the accelerator cable which allegedly malfunctioned was available at the time of trial, and there was testimony in reference to same. There being no spoliation in fact, it was error to give a jury instruction on spoliation, and therefore the final judgment on the verdict in favor of the defendant is reversed and returned to the trial court for a new trial.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Vega v. CSCS Int'l, N.V., 795 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…llowed any of the surgeon’s records or medical bills as evidence. The doctrine of spoliation arises when it is alleged that a crucial piece of evidence is unavailable due to one of the parties’ actions. See Moghari v. Anthony Abraham Chevrolet Co., 699 So. 2d 278, 279 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). CSCS argues that Vega’s herniated disc was “evidence” in the litigation, but there is no precedent to support such an argument. The only case cited by the parties that deals with this issue determined that the treatment of i…
-
Juliana Araujo v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)…is alleged that a crucial piece of evidence is unavailable at the time of trial because of the actions of one or the other of the parties. See, eg., Sponco Mfg. v. Alcover, 656 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Moghari v. Anthony Abraham Chevrolet Co., 699 So. 2d 278, 279 (Fla. 3d DCA1997). We find that in this case, there was no legal necessity for giving either jury instruction 301.11(a) or (b) because there was no showing in the record that Winn-Dixie had a duty, statutory or otherwise, to maintain the video…
-
Juliana Araujo v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)…is alleged that a crucial piece of evidence is unavailable at the time of trial because of the actions of one or the other of the parties. See, eg., Sponco Mfg. v. Alcover, 656 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Moghari v. Anthony Abraham Chevrolet Co., 699 So. 2d 278, 279 (Fla. 3d DCA1997). We find that in this case, there was no legal necessity for giving either jury instruction 301.11(a) or (b) because there was no showing in the record that Winn-Dixie had a duty, statutory or otherwise, to maintain the video…
Authorities Cited
- Sponco Mfg., Inc. v. Alcover, 656 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Sponco Mfg., Inc. v. Alcover, 679 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1996)