Osmulski v. Oldsmar Fine Wine, Inc.
2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 10586
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Osmulski appealed a final judgment in a premises liability case against OFW after a jury apportioned 65% liability to Osmulski and 35% to OFW, with judgment for Osmulski of $45,128.84 plus $39,612.02 in costs.
- Osmulski allegedly slipped in OFW’s store causing a right-wrist fracture; multiple surgeries were performed with potential future surgeries.
- Video surveillance from the incident day may have been lost; OFW claimed no recordings existed, while their principal testified cameras were operational and stored for 60 days but no copies were preserved.
- Osmulski moved for spoliation relief asserting intentional destruction of video and receipts; the trial court denied relief on the basis that no preservation request had been made.
- On appeal, the court held there was no spoliation because Osmulski did not request preservation, but discussed the governing law and potential remedies if a duty to preserve existed.
- The court suggested a potential adverse inference instruction could be appropriate if OFW had a duty to preserve the video evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to preserve absent written request | Osmulski argues OFW had a duty to preserve given foreseeability of claim | OFW had no duty without a written preservation request | No duty found; no spoliation instruction granted |
| Adequacy of remedies if duty existed | Osmulski seeks spoliation instruction or presumption | OFW contests preservation duties | Adverse inference would be appropriate if a duty existed; presumption not mandated in absence of statutory duty |
| Foreseeability standard applicability | Claim foreseeability should trigger duty to preserve | No notice of claim; medical expenses only | Not applicable here; no notice of a broader claim at time of loss |
| Impact of prior slip-and-fall inferences | OFW’s prior behavior suggests awareness of video relevance | Past case does not prove duty in current case | Not controlling; jury could credit insurance-explanation about medical expenses only |
| Whether the decision affects future spoliation law | Clarify preservation duty in digital video context | No need to decide beyond current case | Court comments on need for legislative guidance; does not alter result in this case |
Key Cases Cited
- Golden Yachts, Inc. v. Hall, 920 So.2d 777 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (duty to preserve requires a written request; no automatic presumption without it)
- American Hospitality Management Co. of Minnesota v. Hettiger, 904 So.2d 547 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (adverse inference vs. Valein-type presumption; depends on statutory duties)
- Pub. Health Trust of Dade Cnty. v. Valcin, 507 So.2d 596 (Fla. 1987) (adopted rebuttable presumption of negligence where essential records missing)
- Palmas Y Bambu, S.A. v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Co., 881 So.2d 565 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (distinguishes presumption from adverse inference in negligence cases)
- Jordan ex rel Shealey v. Masters, 821 So.2d 342 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (spoliation framework with factors for duty to preserve)