|
2218 REVIEW DENIED (SEE #2111) If an attorney's alleged negligence resulted in destruction of evidence that a client needed to win an underlying case, in the client's malpractice and spoliation action against the attorney, the burden should be shifted to the attorney to show that the client could have won the underlying case without the missing evidence or would not have won the underlying case even had the evidence not been missing.
GALANEK v WISMAR (Missing Car) 68 CA4 1417 [See: Galanek v Wismar (RehGrtd) AT 11/98; Abeyta v Superior Court 17 CA4 1037, T/AT 10/93; Thomas v Lusk 27 CA4 1709, T/AT 9/94; Haft v Lone Palm Hotel 3 C3 756]
|
|
|