Paulsen Lumber, Inc. v. Anderson

A single and controlling question is presented: Whether the failure of defendant to produce documents in response to plaintiff’s subpoena duces tecum provides an adverse inference sufficient in itself to supply affirmative or substantive proof of an essential element otherwise lacking in plaintiff’s case.

We conclude that it does not, and accordingly we reverse the judgment which the trial judge based totally on an inference derived from the defendant’s failure to respond to the subpoena duces tecum.

This case arises out of a claim for civil liability based on the provisions of sec. 289.02(5),…