MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Oct 20 2020, 8:43 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE,
Jeffrey J. Stesiak MENARD, INC.
James P. Barth Karl J. Veracco
Pfeifer, Morgan & Stesiak Larry L. Barnard
South Bend, Indiana Carson LLP
Fort Wayne, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Walter Griffin, Jr., and Candus October 20, 2020
Griffin, Court of Appeals Case No.
Appellants-Plaintiffs, 20A-CT-310
Appeal from the Elkhart Superior
v. Court
The Honorable Stephen R.
Menard, Inc. and Briggs Bowers, Judge
Plumbing, LLC, Trial Court Cause No.
Appellee-Defendants. 20D02-1603-CT-56
Pyle, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CT-310 | October 20, 2020 Page 1 of 18
Statement of the Case
[1] Walter (“Walter”) and Candus Griffin (“Candus”) (collectively, “the Griffins”)
appeal the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Menard, Inc.
(“Menard”). This appeal originates from a complaint filed by the Griffins
alleging premises liability negligence and loss of consortium based on an
incident at Menard wherein the bottom of a box containing a sink opened when
Walter pulled the box off the shelf, and the sink fell on Walter.
[2] The Griffins argue that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment in
favor of Menard. Specifically, they argue that: (1) Menard failed to negate the
breach of duty element of their premises liability negligence claim because
questions of fact exist as to whether Menard had knowledge of the defectively
packaged sink on its shelf; (2) there was a presumption of negligence created
under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur; and (3) there was an inference of
negligence created under the doctrine of spoliation.
[3] We conclude that, based on the evidence designated to the trial court, Menard
failed in its initial burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue of material
fact regarding whether it had actual or constructive knowledge of whether the
particular sink box was defective. Additionally, Menard failed to meet its initial
burden of showing an absence of material fact on the Griffins’ res ipsa loquitur
claim. However, we conclude that Menard met its burden of negating an
element of the Griffins’ spoliation claim. Accordingly, we affirm the grant of
summary judgment in favor of Menard on the spoliation claim and reverse the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CT-310 | October 20, 2020 Page 2 of 18
grant of summary judgment with respect to the Griffins’ claims of premises
liability negligence and res ipsa loqutur.
[4] We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
Issue
Whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in
favor of Menard.
Facts
[5] The facts most favorable to the Griffins, the non-moving party in this summary
judgment action, reveal that on May 31, 2015, the Griffins were shopping at a
Menard home improvement store in Elkhart, Indiana. The Griffins were
interested in purchasing a new bathroom vanity sink. After seeing a model that
they liked, Walter grabbed the box that contained the desired sink. The box
was located on the second shelf. Walter reached up and grabbed the two
handles on the box and began to remove the box from the shelf. As Walter
pulled the box off the shelf, the bottom part of the box opened, and the sink fell
on Walter. Walter sustained injuries to the right side of his neck, right
shoulder, and right foot.
[6] On March 9, 2016, the Griffins filed a complaint for damages against Menard,
claiming premises liability negligence and loss of consortium. On July 30,
2018, Menard filed a third-party complaint against Briggs Plumbing Products,
LLC, who had manufactured and boxed the sink. On May 1, 2019, Menard
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CT-310 | October 20, 2020 Page 3 of 18
filed a motion for summary judgment and a supporting brief. In support of its
motion, Menard designated portions of depositions given by Walter and
Candus and an affidavit by Brent Bahr (“Bahr”), the Menard store’s general
manager whom Menard had selected as the most knowledgeable person to
respond about the May 31 incident and store policies and procedures. In the
designated portion of Walter’s deposition, he acknowledged that he had not
noticed that the staples were loose on the bottom of the sink box. In his
affidavit, Bahr stated that “[i]t is the policy and practice of Menards that if there
is any problem with the box or packaging of any item, they are not to be placed
upon the shelves for sale.” (App. Vol. 2 at 77). He further declared that “[i]f a
Mendards’ employee would [have] notice[d] . . . any defect or other issue with
regard to the boxes containing the Briggs Plumbing sinks, that employee would
not have placed the sink with the defective packaging on the shelf.” (App. Vol.
2 at 77). Bahr also stated that “Menards had no prior notice of any defect or
problem with the box containing the Briggs Plumbing sink involved in the
incident involving Walter[,]” and that he had “never received any notice of and
[was] not aware of any circumstances where a sink manufactured by Briggs . . .
ha[d] fallen through the bottom of its box.” (App. Vol. 2 at 77). Relying
primarily on Walter’s deposition testimony and Bahr’s affidavit, Menard
argued that it was entitled to summary judgment on the Griffins’ premises
liability negligence claim because it “had no actual or constructive notice of any
dangerous condition which led to Walter[’s] . . . injur[ies].” (App. Vol. 2 at 62).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CT-310 | October 20, 2020 Page 4 of 18
[7] In the Griffins’ summary judgment response, they argued that Menard’s motion
for summary judgment should be denied because there: (1) were issues of
material fact regarding Menard’s constructive knowledge; (2) was a clear
inference of negligence under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur; and (3) was an
inference of negligence under the doctrine of spoliation.
[8] The Griffins first argued that the trial court should deny Menard’s summary
judgment motion because Menard had “failed to designate any evidence that it
exercised reasonable care or attempted to discover the danger but was unable to
do so.” (App. Vol. 2 at 89). The Griffins’ designated evidence included Bahr’s
deposition, wherein he testified about Menard general practices, policies, and
procedures. Bahr first explained that employees are trained to identify defective
merchandise. Specifically, if there is defective merchandise:
whether it’s received off of incoming trucks before it goes to the
floor or once it’s on the floor, you know, team members doing
their cleaning and, you know, walking by products, if they see
something unsafe, damaged, unsellable, we have a defect program
in place to take that merchandise off the shelf and bill it back to
the vendor.
(App. Vol. 2 at 128).
[9] Additionally, Bahr testified that Menard has “general practices” of end-of-the-
night “front and facing” and daily “sectioning.” (App. Vol. 2 at 129). The
front and facing practice requires employees to go through every aisle every
night to “bring every product forward, clean it, front it, [and] face it.” (App.
Vol. 2 at 129). Bahr explained that the sectioning practice entails breaking up
each of Menard’s sales departments into sections to “thoroughly detail each
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CT-310 | October 20, 2020 Page 5 of 18
section where [employees] would, 4 foot at a time, inspect every product in that
section, dust it, clean it, bring it forward, make sure that section is perfect. And
we do a section a day in every department and rotate.” (App. Vol. 2 at 130).
The employee responsible for sectioning is supposed to inspect every product
from “left to right.” (App. Vol. 2 at 130). Bahr further explained that Menard
provides “maps that correlate the dates of the month with what section we
should be doing that day.” (App. Vol. 2 at 130). However, Bahr stated that the
“map . . . [is] a guideline. It doesn’t necessarily mean that zone was done that
day.” (App. Vol. 2 at 154). Bahr further explained that he did not have a “way
to verify if a department did that section or who did that section that day.”
(App. Vol. 2 at 130).
[10] The Griffins’ designated portion of Bahr’s deposition also included Menard’s
standard procedure for dealing with an incident. Bahr explained that
employees are required to fill out an incident report and gather as much
information as possible from the claimant. The employee is then supposed to
check the cameras to see if any surveillance video footage captured the incident
and save the footage. Bahr testified that in relation to the May 31, 2015
incident, neither he nor his employees had investigated whether there had been
any surveillance video footage of the incident. Furthermore, Bahr admitted
that Menard employees do not always follow the policies. Additionally, he
stated that there is no formal policy that requires employees to read the policies.
[11] The Griffins next argued that under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, “the
designated facts and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom show that
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CT-310 | October 20, 2020 Page 6 of 18
[Menard] had the management and control of its store, the stocking of the
shelves, and the inspection for and removal of defective products.” (App. Vol.
2 at 91). As a result, they contended that summary judgment was inappropriate
because there was a clear inference of negligence. Finally, the Griffins argued
that Menard’s “failure to follow its own procedures resulted in the deletion and
loss of any relevant video footage.” (App. Vol. 2 at 92). Therefore, the Griffins
alleged that Menard’s summary judgment motion was precluded based on a
spoliation inference.
[12] Thereafter, Menard filed its reply to the Griffins’ summary judgment response.
Menard argued that: (1) the Griffins had failed to show an issue of material fact
regarding whether it had actual or constructive knowledge of the defective
condition of the box at issue; (2) the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was not
applicable because the box was not in Menard’s exclusive control at the time of
the accident; and (3) the doctrine of spoliation was not applicable because the
Menard store did not have a camera in the specific area of the plumbing
department that would have recorded the incident in question. As
supplemental designated evidence, Menard attached its’ responses to
interrogatories and a portion of Bahr’s deposition. In relevant part, Menard’s
responses stated:
INTERROGATORY NO. 2: When was the last time the section
in which the sink was stocked had been “faced/shelved” or
stocked.
ANSWER: Menards’ Daily Manager’s Responsibilities (To-Do
Lists and Department Closing Checklist) – Policy & Procedure
#204 requires the team members to inspect and reface all
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CT-310 | October 20, 2020 Page 7 of 18
inventory at least every 8 days. Each area of the store is broken
down into 8 specific sections which are inspected and refaced
every day on a rotating basis. Thus, every 8 days all inventory in
the entire area is inspected and refaced. There are no records
maintained pertaining to the inspection and refacing of the
areas/sections.
INTERROGATORY NO. 3: When was the sink received by
Menards, stocked.
ANSWER: Unknown.
INTERROGATORY NO. 4: How long had the sink been on the
shelf.
ANSWER: Unknown.
* * *
INTERROGATORY NO. 6: At the time of the incident, was
there surveillance coverage of the aisle where the incident is
alleged to have occurred?
ANSWER: No.
(App. Vol. 2 at 182-83). Bahr’s designated deposition testimony explained that
there was no surveillance video recorded of the incident on May 31, 2015, the
stocking of the Briggs Plumbing box on the shelf, or the receiving dock where
inventory is received. Bahr further explained that the surveillance cameras have
changed since 2015.
[13] The trial court conducted a hearing and granted summary judgment to Menard.
Thereafter, the trial court amended its summary judgment, making it a final
appealable order. The Griffins now appeal. We will add additional facts when
necessary.
Decision
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CT-310 | October 20, 2020 Page 8 of 18
[14] The Griffins argue that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment to
Menard because: (1) Menard failed to negate the breach of duty element of
their premises liability negligence claim because questions of fact exist as to
whether it had knowledge of the defectively packaged sink on its shelf; (2) there
was a presumption of negligence created under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur;
and (3) there was an inference of negligence created under the doctrine of
spoliation. We will address each argument in turn.
1. Actual or Constructive Knowledge
[15] The Griffins first argue that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment
in favor of Menard because there were questions of fact as to whether Menard
had knowledge of its inventory’s defective packaging. Our standard of review is
well-settled.
We review summary judgment de novo, applying the same
standard as the trial court: “Drawing all reasonable inferences in
favor of . . . the non-moving parties, summary judgment is
appropriate ‘if the designated evidentiary matter shows that there
is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving
party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” Williams v.
Tharp, 914 N.E.2d 756, 761 (Ind. 2009) (quoting T.R. 56(C)). “A
fact is ‘material’ if its resolution would affect the outcome of the
case, and an issue is ‘genuine’ if a trier of fact is required to resolve
the parties’ differing accounts of the truth, or if the undisputed
material facts support conflicting reasonable inferences.” Id.
(internal citations omitted).
The initial burden is on the summary-judgment movant to
“demonstrate[ ] the absence of any genuine issue of fact as to a
determinative issue,” at which point the burden shifts to the non-
movant to “come forward with contrary evidence” showing an
issue for the trier of fact. Id. at 761-62 (internal quotation marks
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CT-310 | October 20, 2020 Page 9 of 18
and substitution omitted). And “[a]lthough the non-moving party
has the burden on appeal of persuading us that the grant of
summary judgment was erroneous, we carefully assess the trial
court’s decision to ensure that he was not improperly denied his
day in court.” McSwane v. Bloomington Hosp. & Healthcare Sys., 916
N.E.2d 906, 909-10 (Ind. 2009) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
Hughley v. State, 15 N.E.3d 1000, 1003 (Ind. 2014) (alterations original to
Hughley).
[16] We emphasize that summary judgment is a “high bar” for the moving party to
clear in Indiana. Id. at 1004. “In particular, while federal practice permits the
moving party to merely show that the party carrying the burden of proof [at
trial] lacks evidence on a necessary element, we impose a more onerous burden:
to affirmatively ‘negate an opponent’s claim.’” Id. at 1003 (quoting Jarboe v.
Landmark Comm. Newspapers of Ind., Inc., 644 N.E.2d 118, 123 (Ind. 1994)).
[17] Here, the Griffins filed their complaint against Menard claiming premises
liability, which is rooted in negligence. In order to recover under a theory of
negligence, the Griffins must establish: (1) the existence of a duty on the part of
Menard to conform its conduct to a standard of care arising from its
relationship with Walter; (2) Menard’s failure to conform its conduct to the
requisite standard of care; and (3) an injury to Walter proximately caused by
Menard’s breach. Mayfield v. Levy Co., 833 N.E.2d 501, 505 (Ind. Ct. App.
2005). Generally, “‘[a] negligence action is rarely an appropriate case for
disposal by summary judgment’” because “‘issues of negligence, causation, and
reasonable care are most appropriately left for a determination of the trier of
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CT-310 | October 20, 2020 Page 10 of 18
fact.’” Id. (quoting Guy’s Concrete, Inc. v. Crawford, 793 N.E.2d 288, 293 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2003), trans. denied).
[18] Neither party disputes that, at the time of the incident, Walter was a business
invitee of Menard. “Under Indiana’s premises liability law, a landowner owes
the highest duty to an invitee: the duty to exercise reasonable care for his
protection while he is on the landowner’s premises.” Converse v. Elkhart Gen.
Hosp., 120 N.E.3d 621, 625 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). Indiana has adopted the
Restatement (Second) of Torts Section 343, which defines the scope of the duty
a landowner owes to an invitee on its property as follows:
A possessor of land is subject to liability for physical harm caused to
his invitees by a condition on the land if, but only if, he
(a) knows or by the exercise of reasonable care would discover the
condition, and should realize that it involves an unreasonable risk
of harm to such invitees, and
(b) should expect that they will not discover or realize the danger,
or will fail to protect themselves against it, and
(c) fails to exercise reasonable care to protect them against the
danger.
Id. (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343 (1965)). Each of the three
conditions set forth in Section 343 must be met for liability to attach. Harradon
v. Schlamadinger, 913 N.E.2d 297, 301 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans. denied.
[19] Additionally, an invitee is “entitled to expect that the possessor will take
reasonable care to ascertain the actual condition of the premises and, having
discovered it, either to make it reasonably safe by repair or to give warning of
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CT-310 | October 20, 2020 Page 11 of 18
the actual condition and the risk involved.” Merrill v. Knauf Fiber Glass GmbH,
771 N.E.2d 1258, 1265 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (citing Restatement (Second) of
Torts § 343, cmt. d), trans. denied. While a landowner’s duty to a business
invitee includes a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect the invitee from
foreseeable dangers on the premises, there is no duty to insure a business
invitee’s safety while on the premises. Schulz v. Kroger Co., 963 N.E.2d 1141,
1144 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). “As an invitor is not the insurer of the invitee’s
safety, and before liability may be imposed on the invitor, it must have actual or
constructive knowledge of the danger.” Id. We have defined constructive
knowledge as a “‘condition [which] has existed for such a length of time and
under such circumstances that it would have been discovered in time to have
prevented injury if the storekeeper, his agents or employees had used ordinary
care.’” Id. (quoting Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Blaylock, 591 N.E.2d 624, 628 (Ind.
Ct. App. 1992), trans. denied).
[20] Here, because Walter was a business invitee at the time of the incident on
Menard’s premises, Menard owed Walter the duty of care set out above. The
Griffins argue that Menard is not entitled to summary judgment because it
failed to negate the breach of duty element of their negligence claim based on
premises liability. Specifically, the Griffins argue that questions of fact exist as
to whether Menard had knowledge of the defectively packaged sink on its shelf.
Menard maintains that the designated evidence shows that it did not have
actual or constructive knowledge of any dangerous condition which led to
Walter’s injury. We agree with the Griffins.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CT-310 | October 20, 2020 Page 12 of 18
[21] As the moving party in this summary judgment action, Menard had the burden
to negate an element of the Griffins’ claim by establishing that no genuine
issues of material fact exist regarding the element. See Jarboe, 644 N.E.2d at
123. More specifically, Menard had the burden of showing, as a matter of law,
the absence of a genuine issue of material fact relating to breach of its duty to
Walter when he was an invitee on Menard’s premises.
[22] The trial court granted Menard’s motion for summary judgment after finding
that the undisputed facts established that Menard did not have actual or
constructive knowledge that the sink’s box was defective. In making its ruling,
the trial court relied on the following evidence:
General Manager Brent Bahr, who had been employed with
Menard, Inc. since 2000, had “never received any notice of and
was not aware of any circumstances where a sink manufactured by
Briggs Plumbing had fallen through the bottom of its box.”
Employees would not place any sinks with defective packages
onto the store’s shelves. Furthermore, “Menards had no prior
notice of any defect or problem with the box containing the Briggs
Plumbing sink involved in the incident[.]”
(App. Vol. 2 at 21-22) (internal citations omitted).
[23] However, there is conflicting evidence. Some evidence shows that “[i]t is the
policy and practice of Menards that if there is any problem with the box or
packaging of any item, they are not to be placed upon the shelves for sale.”
(App. Vol. 2 at 77). But this is contradicted by Bahr’s testimony that Menard
does not have a formal policy requiring that employees read the policies. As
such, he admitted that Menard employees do not always follow proper
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CT-310 | October 20, 2020 Page 13 of 18
procedures. Furthermore, Menard failed to designate evidence showing that
this particular box had been inspected. Moreover, in response to the Griffins’
interrogatories, Menard indicated that it had no knowledge regarding when the
sink at issue had been received or how long it had been on the shelf. The only
designated evidence of investigative measures taken by Menard was that its
employees are supposed to inspect all inventory in an entire area every eight
days. According to Bahr, he could not verify if, or when, the section where the
sink fell on Walter had last been inspected.
[24] In support of its summary judgment claim, Menard draws our attention to
Gasser Chair Co., Inc. v. Nordengreen, 991 N.E.2d 122 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). In
Gasser, a casino patron was injured when the adjustable chair she was sitting on
collapsed due to a failed gas cylinder in the chair. She sued both the casino and
the chair manufacturer. The trial court granted summary judgment to the
casino on the patron’s premises liability claim and denied summary judgment
to the chair manufacturer. The chair manufacturer then appealed the trial
court’s grant of summary judgment to the casino, arguing in part that there
were genuine issues of fact regarding the casino’s knowledge of the defective
nature of the chair on its premises. This Court affirmed the grant of summary
judgment to the casino, which had negated the element regarding its knowledge
of a dangerous condition on its premises. We concluded that there was no
genuine issue of fact that the casino had actual or constructive knowledge that
the chair was a dangerous condition on its premises. Gasser, 991 N.E.2d 126-
27. In reaching this decision, we explained that the chairs were inspected daily,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CT-310 | October 20, 2020 Page 14 of 18
no problems had been reported with the chair the patron had used, that the
chair manufacturer had not warned the casino about the danger of the gas
cylinder suddenly falling, and that although there had been some previous
problems with a very small percentage of chairs at the casino, none of those
problems had caused injuries. Id. at 127.
[25] The facts of Gasser can be distinguished from the facts of this case.
Significantly, unlike in Gasser where the chairs were inspected daily, there was
no evidence designated establishing when the defective box had last been
inspected. Indeed, Bahr stated that he could not verify if, or when, the section
where the sink fell on Walter had last been inspected. Furthermore, Bahr
testified that employees do not always follow Menard’s own policies. Because
the defective box was on the shelf for an unspecified period of time, there
remains a question of fact regarding whether Menard had actual or constructive
knowledge that the sink box was a dangerous condition on its premises.
[26] Viewing this evidence in light of the facts most favorable to the Griffins, the
non-movants, we must conclude that Menard has failed to meet its initial
burden of negating the breach of duty element of the Griffins’ negligence claim
based on premises liability. See, e.g., Sinner v. Kindred Hosp. Ltd. P’ship, 51
N.E.3d 1184, 1189 (Ind. 2016) (noting that under Indiana law, summary
judgment movant has the burden of affirmatively negating an opponent’s
claim).
2. Res Ipsa Loquitor
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CT-310 | October 20, 2020 Page 15 of 18
[27] Next, the Griffins argue that there is a presumption of negligence under the
doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Res ipsa loquitur is translated from Latin as “the
thing speaks for itself.” Gary Cmty. Sch. Corp. v. Lardydell, 8 N.E.3d 241, 247
(Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied. Res ipsa loquitur is a rule of evidence that
permits an inference of negligence to be drawn based upon the surrounding
facts and circumstances of the injury. Johnson v. Blue Chip Casino, LLC, 110
N.E.3d 375, 378 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018), trans. denied. Under res ipsa loquitur,
negligence may be inferred where: (1) the injuring instrumentality is shown to
be under the management or exclusive control of the defendant or his servants;
and (2) the accident is such that in the ordinary course of things does not
happen if those who have management of the injuring instrumentality use
proper care. Volger v. Dominguez, 624 N.E.2d 56, 61 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993), reh’g
denied, trans. denied. To invoke res ipsa loquitur, the plaintiff must demonstrate
that the defendant had exclusive control of the injuring instrumentality at the
time of the injury. Rector v. Oliver, 809 N.E.2d 887, 890 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004).
“The element of ‘exclusive control’ is an expansive concept which focuses upon
who has the right or power of control to exercise it, rather than actual physical
control.” Volger, 624 N.E.2d at 61 (internal citations omitted). Further,
exclusive control is satisfied if the defendant had control at the time of the
alleged negligence. Id. at 61-62.
[28] In this summary judgment proceeding, Menard argued, and the trial court
found, that the Griffins “cannot establish that Menards was in exclusive control
of the defective box at the time of the incident at issue in this case.” (App. Vol.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CT-310 | October 20, 2020 Page 16 of 18
2 at 171). However, “[m]erely alleging that the plaintiff has failed to produce
evidence on each element of [his cause of action against the defendant] is
insufficient to entitle the defendant to summary judgment under Indiana law.”
Jarboe, 644 N.E.2d at 123. As the moving party, Menard had the burden to
negate the control element. Id. The designated evidence demonstrates that
Menard had the management and control of its premises. Moreover, Menard
also had the power to control the stocking of the shelves, and the inspection and
removal of defective products. These details leave open an issue of material fact
as to the element of exclusive control.
3. Spoliation
[29] Last, the Griffins argue that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment
to Menard on the Griffins’ spoliation theory, and they contend that designated
evidence created an inference of negligence under the doctrine of spoliation.
“Spoliation is a particular discovery abuse that involves the intentional or
negligent destruction, mutilation, alteration, or concealment of physical
evidence.” N. Ind. Pub. Serv. Co. v. Aqua Envtl. Container Corp., 102 N.E.3d 290,
300 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (internal quotation omitted). A party raising a claim
of spoliation must prove that (1) there was a duty to preserve the evidence, and
(2) the alleged spoliator either negligently or intentionally destroyed, mutilated,
altered, or concealed the evidence. Id. at 301.
[30] Here, Menard designated evidence showing that there was not a camera in the
Menard store that could have captured video of the incident. Specifically,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CT-310 | October 20, 2020 Page 17 of 18
Menard’s responses to interrogatories stated that, at the time of the incident,
there was no surveillance coverage of the aisle where the incident occurred. We
agree with the trial court that Menard “cannot have sought to wrongfully
conceal that which did not exist.” (App. Vol. 2 at 26). We therefore conclude
that the trial court did not err in finding that the doctrine of spoliation was
inapplicable to this case.
Conclusion
[31] In conclusion, the evidence designated to the trial court demonstrates that
Menard did not meet its initial summary judgment burden of showing an
absence of a genuine issue of material fact regarding the breach of duty element
of the Griffins’ negligence claim based on premises liability. In addition,
Menard failed to meet its initial burden of showing an absence of material fact
on the Griffins’ res ipsa loquitur claim. However, Menard did meet its burden of
negating an element of the Griffins’ spoliation claim. Accordingly, we affirm
the grant of summary judgment in favor of Menard on the spoliation claim and
reverse the grant of summary judgment with respect to the Griffins’ claims of
premises liability negligence and res ipsa loqutur.
[32] Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.
Kirsch, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CT-310 | October 20, 2020 Page 18 of 18