- Appellate Practice
- Business Practices
- Catastrophic Loss Recovery and Defense
- Commercial and Complex Litigation
- Commercial Real Estate and Land Development
- Construction Law
- Employment Practices And Workers’ Compensation Defense/Recovery
- Insurance Coverage
- Insurance Defense Litigation
- Medical Malpractice
- Municipal and Public Official Liability
- Nonprofit Organizations
- Nursing Home and Senior Housing
- Products Liability Defense
- Jury Returns Verdict in favor of Hospital and Emergency Medicine Physicians
- Judge Grants Summary Judgment in favor of Hospital and Emergency Medicine Physician
- Jury Returns Verdict in favor of Health System and Family Practice Physician
- Victory on Claims of Excessive Force Against Task Force Members
- Radiologist not guilty of failing to diagnose lung cancer in a 40-year-old male which resulted in his death and, who was survived by a wife and 4 children
Although we strive for accuracy, the content of our blog is intended for informational purposes only. It is not intended to solicit business or to provide legal advice. Laws differ by jurisdiction, and the information may not apply to every reader. You should not take, or refrain from taking, any legal action based upon the information contained on this blog without first seeking professional counsel.
Your use of the blog does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and LGLJ.
Tag Archives: Spoliation of evidence
The Illinois Supreme Court recently confirmed that a party owes no affirmative duty to preserve potential evidence in advance of litigation. In Martin v. Keeley & Sons, Inc., the Plaintiffs, employees of Defendant Keeley, were working to construct a bridge over Maxwell Creek in Randolph County, Illinois. While they were working, the concrete I-Beam they were standing on rolled, split in two parts, and then crashed into the creek below, injuring several workers. The Illinois Department of Transportation and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration conducted an investigation of the accident site, including a non-destructive examination of the I-Beam. The following day, after engineers from Keeley conducted a visual examination of the I-Beam, the beam was removed under the direction of Keeley and salvaged.
Plaintiffs brought suit against the manufacturer of the I-Beam, the designer of the I-Beam and Keeley. Plaintiffs’ also sued Keeley for destruction (spoliation) of evidence with respect to the destroyed I-Beam. The manufacturer and designer ultimately filed counterclaims for spoliation against Keeley. Keeley filed a motion for summary judgment and the circuit court found that Keeley had no duty to preserve the I-Beam, a decision which was ultimately upheld by the Illinois Supreme Court.
In its decision, the Illinois Supreme Court found that Keeley had no duty to preserve the I-Beam, even though it knew it would likely be a party to future litigation with regard to the I-Beam. Generally, in Illinois there is no duty to preserve evidence. However, the Supreme Court previously established an exception to the general no-duty rule if a two prong test is satisfied. Under the first part of the test, a plaintiff must show that an agreement, contract, statute, special circumstance, or voluntary undertaking has given rise to a defendant’s duty to preserve. A voluntary undertaking requires a showing of affirmative conduct by the defendant evidencing its intent to voluntarily assume a duty to preserve evidence. Mere control of the piece of evidence is not sufficient to satisfy the first prong the exception. The second prong of the exception to the no-duty rule is that a defendant should have foreseen that the evidence was material to a potential civil litigation. Read More…