Opinion

Carter v. Hi Nabor Super Market, LLC

  • 2013 La.App. 1 Cir. 0529
  • 168 So. 3d 698
  • 2014 La. App. LEXIS 3113
  • 2014 WL 7403748
Court
Louisiana Court of Appeal
Filed
Dec 30, 2014
Status
Published
Author
McDonald
On the bench
Crain, Kuhn, McDonald, Welch, Whipple
Cited by
23 cases

providing for "an instruction to the jury that it may infer that the evidence was detrimental to that party" (emphasis added)

How later courts described this case

  • providing for "an instruction to the jury that it may infer that the evidence was detrimental to that party" (emphasis added)

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

McDONALD, J.,

Agreeing in part and dissenting in part:

hi agree with the majority to affirm the trial court denying the motion for an adverse inference based on spoliation. I believe the trial court was well within its discretion and I also find no abuse of this discretion in accepting Hi Nabor’s reasonable explanation for failing to preserve any additional evidence. I respectfully dissent, however, from the majority decision to reverse the trial court’s granting of the motion for summary judgment. I do not believe there are any genuine issues of material fact and would affirm the trial court.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.