# Pyeritz v. Commonwealth

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · November 23, 2011 · 613 Pa. 80

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9753768

## Case

- **Full name:** Dawn A. PYERITZ, Administratrix of the Estate of Daniel E. Pyeritz, Deceased, and Dawn A. Pyeritz, Parent and Natural Guardian of Nicole L. Pyeritz, a Minor, and Christopher E. Pyeritz, a Minor, and Dawn A. Pyeritz, an Individual, in Her Own Right, Appellants v. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, State Police Department of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Col. Jeffrey B. Miller, Commissioner, Pennsylvania State Police, Pennsylvania State Police Troopers James Custer and Daniel Ekis, Pennsylvania State Police Corporals James Caccimelio and Andre Stevens and Pennsylvania State Police Lieutenant Charles Depp, Appellees
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** November 23, 2011
- **Citations:** 613 Pa. 80; 32 A.3d 687; 2011 Pa. LEXIS 2831
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Todd
- **Judges:** Castille, Saylor, Eakin, Baer, Todd, McCaffery, Greenspan
- **Cited by:** 154 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9753768

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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

## Opinion text

*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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9753768. Public record. Not legal advice.