Summary of Legal Case Related to
Product Liability / Negligence Expert Witnesses:

Legal Issue(s) Involved / Type of Legal Case:
Tort Law -- Product Liability / Negligence
Wrongful Death
Spoliation of Relevant Evidence

Expert Witness' Area of Expertise:
Marine Vessel Safety
Fire Cause & Analysis on Boats & Ships

Case:
Vodusek v Bayliner Marine Corporation
http://openjurist.org/71/f3d/148/vodusek-v-bayliner-marine-corporation

Court:
U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals

Date:
December 6, 1995

Case Summary*:
One day Mr. Vodusek refueled his boat for travel from Pasadena, MD. to Baltimore’s Inner Harbor. A while later, when he switched on the bilge pump, the boat exploded. He was fatally burned and died three months later. Mrs. Vodusek was the plaintiff-appellant. Her expert witness theorized that a faulty switch of the bilge pump sparked and ignited fumes accumulated from a leak in the fuel tank vent hose. He attributed the leak to defective design that brought the hose into contact with the underside of the boat. To test his theory he and two sons of plaintiff cut open parts of the boat using a chain saw and sledge hammers, thereby destroying (and rendering unavailable) evidence deemed relevant by defendant. The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, in Baltimore, instructed the jury, among other things, that they could apply the rule of spoliation of relevant evidence to the case, namely, that if they found that the destroyed evidence was relevant to defendant and that plaintiff’s agent failed in his duty to preserve it, they could draw an adverse inference from it against plaintiff. The trial ended in favor of defendant. Plaintiff appealed on several grounds, including a claim that the above charge to the jury was prejudicial to her.

Expert Witness' Involvement in the Case*:
On appeal, plaintiff-appellant argued that the rule of spoliation of relevant evidence should not apply in her case because her expert witness had to cut the boat to get to the fuel system (and took pictures of the parts he worked on before they were altered) and, moreover, no bad faith was involved. The U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals held that (1) the rule applies when a party in litigation, knows that evidence may be relevant to another party and willfully and consciously destroys it, and.(2) bad faith is sufficient but not always necessary to apply the rule. When the rule applies the court has discretion how to level the evidentiary field or otherwise sanction the offending party.

*Prepared by P. Mendelson, a New York attorney .

To contact this expert call the Legal Expert Network at 1-800-597-5371.