Pandel Ludwig v. Flaherty & Collins, Inc.

Summary

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed judgment for Flaherty & Collins, Inc. after a jury found the plaintiff ninety percent at fault for injuries sustained in a slip-and-fall on ice outside an apartment-complex fitness center. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to give an adverse-inference instruction concerning missing surveillance footage or by denying a new trial based on the verdict form. The opinion discusses first-party spoliation, preservation duties, remedies, and the effect of recent amendments to Indiana Trial Rule 37 concerning electronically stored information.

Holdings

1. Flaherty had a duty to preserve surveillance footage from the day of Ludwig's fall because, upon learning two days after the incident that a tenant had slipped, fallen, and been injured on its property, a sophisticated landlord should have known that litigation was possible.
2. Flaherty was at least negligent in allowing the surveillance footage from the day of the incident to be automatically deleted approximately five days after learning of Ludwig's fall, particularly because it failed to preserve any footage.
3. Even assuming Indiana law permits a permissive adverse-inference instruction for negligent or intentional spoliation of surveillance footage, any error in refusing the instruction was harmless and did not warrant a new trial.
4. The alleged irregularities and crossed-out entries on the verdict form did not require a new trial because the trial court polled every juror, each juror confirmed the verdict, and the court's instructions made clear that a finding that Ludwig was more than fifty percent at fault required a defense verdict and no damages.
5. Ludwig waived her argument that the verdict form was 'extraordinary' because she cited no legal authority supporting the requested new trial.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to give Ludwig's proposed adverse-inference instruction concerning allegedly spoliated surveillance footage.
2. Whether the refusal to give the spoliation instruction, if erroneous, was harmless because Ludwig was permitted to present evidence and argument concerning the missing footage and the jury overwhelmingly assigned fault to her.
3. Whether alleged alterations and crossed-out entries on the verdict form required a new trial.
4. Whether polling the jurors, together with the court's comparative-fault instructions, established that the verdict accurately reflected the jury's intent.

Disposition

affirmed