Lorie Applebaum v. Target Corporation
831 F.3d 740
6th Cir.2016Background
- In 2009 Applebaum bought a purple Schwinn mountain bike from Target and, on its first ride minutes later, fell when the rear brake clamped, injuring her shoulder. A bystander released the brake and Applebaum returned the bike to Target July 7, 2009.
- Applebaum alleged Target sold a bike with defective brakes (or sold a used/repaired bike represented as new); Target disputed the bike was ever repaired and asserted it was new.
- The bicycle itself disappeared after the return; Target reported the incident to Sedgwick (claims administrator), and Sedgwick’s investigator found no record of a February 2009 repair at the Farmington Hills store.
- Applebaum sued Target (and two vendor defendants, who defaulted); after a three-day jury trial the jury found Target not negligent. The district court denied a new trial; Applebaum appealed.
- On appeal Applebaum challenged (1) weight of the evidence, (2) exclusion of two writings as hearsay (business-records exception), and (3) limits on adverse-inference (spoliation) instructions for the missing bicycle and records.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Weight of the evidence | Applebaum: evidence uniformly shows bike had prior repair and defective brakes caused fall. | Target: evidence shows bike was new, accessories present, repair records absent, expert blamed operator error. | Affirmed: reasonable jury could credit Target; verdict not against weight of evidence. |
| Admissibility of Impact’s letters/emails (hearsay/business records) | Applebaum: writings should be admitted under Fed. R. Evid. 803(6) as business records (or as in Sedgwick file). | Target: no foundation about Impact’s recordkeeping; letters were counsel statements prepared for indemnity inquiry and not Sedgwick’s own records. | Affirmed exclusion: no foundation; writings not admissible and potentially prepared in anticipation of litigation. |
| Adverse inference for destroyed/missing bicycle (spoliation) | Applebaum: jury should be told destruction prevented forensic exam and could infer brakes were defective. | Target: no culpable destruction; bike custody disputed; jury already instructed on inference if disposal unjustified. | Affirmed: instruction adequate; no abuse in refusing extra "forensic" language. |
| Adverse inference for missing repair records/sign-in sheets | Applebaum: Target contract with vendor implies records existed and were withheld; instruction warranted. | Target: no evidence records existed or that Target controlled/destroyed them; sign-in sheets were routinely discarded before notice of litigation. | Affirmed: no basis for spoliation instruction—no proof records existed, were controlled by Target, or destroyed after notice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Armisted v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 675 F.3d 989 (6th Cir. 2012) (standard for new trial based on weight of evidence)
- Adkins v. Wolever, 554 F.3d 650 (6th Cir. 2009) (spoliation sanctions and adverse-inference principles)
- United States v. Baker, 458 F.3d 513 (6th Cir. 2006) (business-records hearsay-foundation rules)
- Palmer v. Hoffman, 318 U.S. 109 (1943) (records prepared in anticipation of litigation may lack trustworthiness)
- Beaven v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 622 F.3d 540 (6th Cir. 2010) (elements for spoliation inference)
- Byrd v. Alpha Alliance Ins., 518 F. App’x 380 (6th Cir. 2013) (discussing business-records exception and related evidentiary issues)