|
2137 The action for negligent spoliation of evidence continues to exist, but in determining whether the defendant owed plaintiff a duty to preserve evidence, the court should consider the extent to which the transaction was intended to affect plaintiff and the foreseeability of harm to plaintiff, the degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered injury and the connection between defendant's conduct and that injury, moral blame, and the policy of preventing future harm.
JOHNSON v USAA (Negligent Spoliation) 67 CA4 626 [See: Cedars-Sinai v Superior Court 18 C4 1, T/AT 6/98; Smith v Superior Court 151 CA3 491; Velasco v Commercial 169 CA3 874; J'Aire v Gregory 24 C3 799]
|
|
|