Legal Opinion · Dissent

Mead v. Papa Razzi

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Decided June 2, 2006No. 2004-317-AppealPublished

1DissentJustice Suttell

Although I agree with the majority that some form of an instruction on spoliation was appropriate in this case, and indeed virtually required by our decision in Mead v. Papa Razzi Restaurant, 840 A.2d 1103 (R.I.2004) (Mead I), I believe that the instruction given was erroneous and represents an unwarranted expansion of the doctrine of spoliation. Accordingly, I would vacate the judgment and remand for a new trial.

The doctrine of spoliation is an ancient principle that traces its roots to Roman law. This Court has commented that under the doctrine omnia praesumuntur contra spoliatorem,8 “the…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Kronisch v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1998
  2. Nation-Wide Check Corporation, Inc. v. Forest Hills Distributors, Inc., Nation-Wide Check Corporation, Inc. v. Forest Hills Distributors, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1982
  3. Kurczy v. St. Joseph Veterans Ass'n, Inc.Supreme Court of Rhode Island · 2003
  4. Tancrelle v. Friendly Ice Cream Corp.Supreme Court of Rhode Island · 2000
  5. Mead v. Papa Razzi RestaurantSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 2004

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API