Where a plaintiff challenged the dismissal of his wrongful death action against a hospital after his father died following a fall, evidence that the defendant gave inconsistent explanations and failed to adequately explain the destruction of a surveillance video supported the application of the spoliation doctrine, so the plaintiff was entitled to an adverse inference that the video was unfavorable to its position, and the defendant also mischaracterized the law and misled the jury by arguing in closing that an adverse inference was not supported since it was not in the instructions, so the judgment is reversed and remanded.
Judgement is reversed and remanded.
Hill v. SSM Health Care St. Louis (MLW No. 71715/Case No. ED105779 – 12 pages) (Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Richter, J.) Appealed from circuit court, St. Louis County, McLaughlin, J. (Douglas P. Dowd, William T. Dowd and Alex R. Lumaghi for appellant) (Timothy L. Gearin, David G. Ott, Jeffery T. McPherson and Nicolas Cejas for respondent).