concluding that the exception did not apply because “this is not a case . . . where the injury sued for is injury to the property itself;” rather, “[t]he alleged injury here is to legal claims arising out Decedent’s death because of the destruction of the [property].”
How later courts described this case
- concluding that the exception did not apply because “this is not a case . . . where the injury sued for is injury to the property itself;” rather, “[t]he alleged injury here is to legal claims arising out Decedent’s death because of the destruction of the [property].”
- holding that the plaintiffs in an action against the Pennsylvania State Police did not have a cause of action for the State Police’s destruction of evidence related to the plaintiffs’ separate products liability suit
- holding that no cause of action for negligent spoliation of evidence exists in Pennsylvania
- holding that there is no cause of action for the tort of spoliation of evidence
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*97 Justice TODD,
concurring.
I join the Majority Opinion with one exception. I disagree with the majority’s suggestion that Appellants’ counsel, in relying on the state trooper’s agreement to retain the evidence at the state police barracks, somehow lacked due care. See Majority Opinion at 693. Indeed, I believe counsel can and should be able to reasonably rely on the assurances of law enforcement personnel. Nonetheless, I agree, for purposes of this question in tort, the state trooper’s assurances do not control the issue of the Commonwealth’s liability.