Flores v. Exprezit! Stores 98-Georgia, LLC, 314 Ga. App. 570

Floreses sued under OCGA § 51-1-40 for injuries to their minor child from a head-on collision involving Grundell who was intoxicated and who allegedly purchased packaged beer four hours earlier from Exprezit! Stores 98-Georgia, LLC.
Evidence showed Grundell had BAC of 0.181 after the collision; Floreses alleged Exprezit! sold him beer while intoxicated and knew he would soon drive.
Exprezit! store employee testified she did not sell beer to Grundell; other witnesses saw Grundell with beer, creating a factual dispute.
Trial court granted summary judgment on two elements: that Exprezit! sold beer to Grundell and that sale was a proximate cause; the court treated the evidence as purely non-circumstantial.
Georgia Supreme Court later held OCGA § 51-1-40 did apply to the claim, reversing the earlier Flores decisions and remanding for trial on remaining issues.
The court also addressed spoliation of evidence: surveillance video and receipts were discarded, Floreses claimed a rebuttable presumption; trial court found no spoliation; appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Exprezit! sold beer to Grundell	Floreses: there was a sale evidenced by witnesses carrying beer.	Exprezit!: no witness testified to a sale; employee denied selling beer.	Yes; issue for jury as circumstantial evidence supported sale.
Whether sale proximate to collision proximately caused injuries	Sale and Grundell’s intoxication contributed to the collision.	No direct proof that sale was proximate cause; too attenuated.	Yes; jury question whether sale and intoxication proximate cause of injuries.
Spoliation of surveillance video and receipts	Evidence destruction prejudices Floreses; may trigger presumption.	No notice of pending litigation; no spoliation.	No spoliation; no abuse of discretion; sanctions not warranted.

Rosales v. Davis, 260 Ga.App. 709, 580 S.E.2d 662 (2003) (circumstantial evidence must point more strongly to alternative; unimpeached direct evidence overrides)
Blount v. Sutton, 114 Ga.App. 767, 152 S.E.2d 777 (1966) (circumstantial evidence and direct testimony considerations)
Griffin v. Blackshear Bank, 66 Ga.App. 821, 19 S.E.2d 325 (1942) (circumstantial evidence value relative to direct testimony)
Silman v. Assocs. Bellemeade, 286 Ga. 27, 685 S.E.2d 277 (2009) (spoliation notice requirements; litigation context)
Kitchens v. Brusman, 303 Ga.App. 703, 694 S.E.2d 667 (2010) (spoliation and litigation notice standards in GA)
Paggett v. Kroger Co., 311 Ga.App. 690, 716 S.E.2d 792 (2011) (trial court discretion on spoliation issues)