MICHAEL DELONG AND VICCI DELONG, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
A-TOP AIR CONDITIONING CO. AND JORDA MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR OF PALM BEACH, INC. APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The DeLongs appealed the dismissal of their personal injury action with prejudice after inadvertently losing material evidence relevant to the defendants' defense. The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing this sanction where the defendants demonstrated they could not adequately prepare their defense without examining the lost evidence.
The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing dismissal with prejudice where the defendants demonstrated their inability to completely set forth their defense without having had the opportunity to examine and test the lost evidence. The loss need not have been willful to justify the ultimate sanction.
[1] Dismissal with prejudice is an appropriate sanction for spoliation of evidence when the opposing party demonstrates an inability to present a complete defense without the…
[2] A court may impose the ultimate sanction of dismissal with prejudice for spoliation of evidence even in the absence of a showing of bad faith or willful destruction.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“we cannot conclude that the lower court abused its discretion in imposing the ultimate sanction of dismissal with prejudice where the appellees demonstrated their inability to completely set forth their defense without having had the opportunity to examine and test the lost evidence”
States the core holding that dismissal with prejudice is a proper sanction when defendants cannot prepare their defense without the lost evidence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMichael DeLong and his wife filed a personal injury action against A-TOP Air Conditioning Co. and Jorda Mechanical Contractor of Palm Beach, Inc. DeLo…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Spoliation Of Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Michael DeLong and his wife, plaintiffs below, appeal the dismissal of their personal injury action with prejudice based on spoliation of evidence after DeLong inadvertently lost or misplaced a piece of relevant and material evidence. After a careful review of the record before us, we cannot conclude that the lower court abused its discretion in imposing the ultimate sanction of dismissal with prejudice where the appellees demonstrated their inability to completely set forth their defense without having had the opportunity to examine and test the lost evidence. See Sponco Mfg., Inc. v. Alcover, 656 So. 2d 629, 630 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (affirming entry of default against manufacturer who discarded an allegedly defective ladder, despite the fact that there was no evidence that the manufacturer willfully destroyed the evidence); Rockwell Int’l Corp. v. Menzies, 561 So. 2d 677, 681 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (defendant/manufacturer’s destruction and loss of two bolts attached to a table saw and motor, justified striking the manufacturer’s pleadings and entering default on liability, even in the absence of a showing of bad faith on the manufacturer’s part); New Hampshire Ins. Co., Inc. v. Royal Ins. Co., 559 So. 2d 102, 103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (striking of pleadings may be appropriate sanction “[i]f appellant has destroyed relevant and material information by destroying the file, and that information is so essential to the appellee’s defense that it cannot proceed without it”); DePuy, Inc. v. Eckes, 427 So. 2d 306, 308 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)(affirming trial court’s striking of defendant’s answer for returning plaintiff’s prosthesis with a crucial piece missing).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Torres v. Matsushita Elec. Corp., 762 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…and the court was aware of the parties’ positions. It knew that by striking the witness and denying the inference, plaintiff could not, as a matter of law, prevail on either count so it dismissed the action. In DeLong v. A-Top Air Conditioning Co., 710 So. 2d 706, 707 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), the Third District held: Michael DeLong and his wife, plaintiffs below, appeal the dismissal of their personal injury action with prejudice based on-spoliation of evidence after DeLong inadvertently lost or misplaced a piec…1 / 3
-
Landry v. Charlotte Motor Cars, LLC, 226 So. 3d 1053 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…. Assuming that' Ms. Landry had a duty to preserve the vehicle, Ms. Landry only had to preserve the vehicle so that the Dealership would have an opportunity to examine it. See Torres, 762 So. 2d at 1018 (quoting DeLong v. A-Top Air Conditioning Co., 710 So. 2d 706, 707 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)). Furthermore, it is not self-evident that Ms. Landry was required to prevent a nonparty from rightfully possessing the vehicle to preserve the vehicle, especially when the Dealership knew the vehicle’s identification number…
-
Harrell v. Mayberry, 754 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…s physical evidence, and when the plaintiff has demonstrated an inability to proceed without such evidence. Sponco Mfg., Inc. v. Alcover, 656 So. 2d 629, 630 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (citations and footnote omitted); DeLong v. A-Top Air Conditioning Co., 710 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); New Hampshire Ins., 559 So. 2d 102. See also Rockwell Int’l Corp. v. Menzies, 561 So. 2d 677, 680 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (degree of sanctions to be imposed must be related to degree of prejudice sustained by nonoffending party). Her…
Authorities Cited
- Sponco Mfg., Inc. v. Alcover, 656 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- DePUY, Inc. v. Eckes, 427 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- NEW Hampshire Ins. Co., Inc. v. Royal Ins. Co., 559 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- Rockwell Int'l Corp. v. Gregorie Menzies and Ziol Menzies, 561 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)