In the slip and fall case of Charoff v. Marmaxx Operating, No. 18-4712 (E.D.Pa. April 7, 2020 Jones, J.), the court ruled that the Plaintiff was entitled to an adverse inference during motion for summary judgment proceedings due to TJMaxx’s inability to produce video surveillance involved in the matter. The court also denied the Defendant store’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff had previously contacted the store’s carrier and requested that the video evidence be preserved. The evidence before the court was that the standard practice was that the carrier would then contact the store to request that any videos be preserved.
The Defendant argued that there was no video surveillance as the location where the Plaintiff allegedly fell was allegedly in a “blind spot.”
Given the issues of fact raised, the court denied the motion for summary judgment.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this case may click this LINK.
Source: Article: “Judge Comes Down on TJMaxx for Allegedly Destroying Evidence in Injury Case” in the Pennsylvania Law Weekly by P.J. D’Annunzio (April 8, 2020).