Blue Bell, PA – In an August 2, 2024 Opinion, a unanimous panel of the Pennsylvania Superior Court upheld an Order obtained by Rawle’s London Practice Group partners Sheila E. O’Donnell and Catherine Walto granting Summary Judgment in favor of their client.

The case arose out of a fall that occurred at a bar and restaurant, resulting in serious personal injuries to the Plaintiff customer.  Plaintiff could not state what caused her to fall that evening nor could the friend who was with her.  Likewise, none of the other patrons that were located and deposed knew what caused her fall and saw nothing on the floor.

The trial court agreed with Rawle that the Plaintiff’s reliance on the unrebutted opinion of her expert should also be rejected as it failed to offer opinions consistent with the facts of the case and lacked the requisite specialized knowledge, a decision which was affirmed by the Superior Court.  Finally, the Defendant had security videos capturing the area of the fall, but they were taped over automatically after approximately 6 weeks.

The Plaintiff took the position that since the Defendant was immediately aware of the incident and seriousness of the injury, it had a duty to preserve those security videos.  Had the videos been preserved, the Plaintiff argued, inter alia, that they could have provided information as to the cause of her fall and negligence of the Defendant.

While the Superior Court agreed that the Defendant should have preserved the videos, it also agreed with the trial court that the Plaintiff could not otherwise establish a prima facia case of negligence or proximate causation against the Defendant.

Under those circumstances, the Superior Court concluded that “[a] deleted video causes little prejudice to a litigant who has no proof [and, as such, the Defendant’s] failure to preserve the videotape resulted in only a speculative degree of prejudice.”

As a result, the Superior Court concluded that it saw “no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision to refrain from issuing a sanction for spoliation.”  Noting that “a spoliation inference pertaining to the deleted video…constituted the entirety of proof in [Plaintiff’s] cause of action,” the Superior Court went on to hold that “[a]n adverse inference based upon a deleted videotape cannot form the sole basis by which a party withstands summary judgment.”

About Rawle & Henderson:  Founded in 1783, Rawle & Henderson has been recognized by the American Bar Association as the oldest law firm in continuous practice in the United States. With 10 offices in Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia, its more than 100 lawyers represent the interests of corporations, businesses, individuals and their insurers.  For more information, visit www.rawle.com