Case Name: BUILDER'S SQUARE, INC., Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. James SHAW, Appellee/Cross-Appellant
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1999-09-17
Citations: 755 So. 2d 721
Docket Number: No. 97-2710
Parties: BUILDER’S SQUARE, INC., Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. James SHAW, Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
Judges: POLEN and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 755
Pages: 721–728

Head Matter:
BUILDER’S SQUARE, INC., Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. James SHAW, Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
No. 97-2710.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Sept. 17, 1999.
Robert H. Schwartz and Jonathan M. Matzner of Adorno & Zeder, P.A ., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant/cross-appellee.
Michael G. Cooksey of Cooksey & Cook-sey, P.A., Riviera Beach, and John T. Hy-land, Denver, Colorado, for appellee/cross-appellant.

Opinion:
ON MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION, REHEARING AND REHEARING EN BANC
PER CURIAM.
Builder's Square has filed a motion for clarification, rehearing and rehearing en banc. Upon further reflection, we conclude that our comments critical of appellant's counsel were not well-taken and not supported by the record. As such, and based on the merits of Builder's Square's motions, we grant rehearing, withdraw our original opinion, and substitute the following in its place:
In this action, the plaintiff sought damages resulting from a fall from a ladder while he was employed at Builder's Square. At first, he sued the manufacturer in products liability and his employer in negligence relating to the use of the ladder. Later, after learning that the ladder had been destroyed, he amended his complaint to add a cause of action against Builder's Square for spoliation of evidence. At some point, he settled with the manufacturer for $250,000. He proceeded to trial against Builder's Square on his spoliation of evidence claim.
During trial, an issue arose as to the $250,000 settlement and its effect on the spoliation of evidence claim. Builder's Square argued that the fact and amount of the settlement were relevant and probative as to whether plaintiff was substantially impaired by the loss of the ladder in prosecuting his products liability claim against the manufacturer. The trial judge agreed that these settlement facts went to the existence of the cause of action for spoliation of evidence and disclosed them to the jury. At the same time, the trial judge refused the plaintiffs request to instruct the jury not to use the settlement amount in calculating the amount of damages.
There was trial testimony that plaintiff was never, paid more than $6.50 per hour in wages by Builder's Square but that he had previously made as much as $12 hourly as a carpenter. A vocational economist testified as to future lost wages based on two models: one from plaintiffs earnings at Builder's Square; the other from his previous career as a carpenter. As to the Builder's Square model, the economist testified that he used an hourly rate of $8 in his calculations. As to the carpenter's model, he testified that he used the $12 hourly rate adjusted upwards for inflation.
During closing arguments, Builder's Square argued to the jury that the $8 per hour figure the economist used in the Builder's Square model was incorrect, since the evidence showed plaintiff never made over $6.50 per hour at Builder's Square. He argued that, because the hourly wage employed by the economist was incorrect, the judge and jury could not allow for any lost wages that would equate to an $8 per hour pay scale.
The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. In an interrogatory verdict, the jury expressly decided on the spoliation of evidence claim that plaintiff had been substantially impaired on his products liability claim against the manufacturer as a result of Builder's Square's destruction of the ladder. As to lost future wages, the jury's award of such damages was based on an analysis involving an $8 per hour salary.
Builder's Square moved for a remittitur to $6.50 on the future wages, as well as a $250,000 setoff, in its post trial motions. It argued that the future wages award was based on a rate of $8 per hour rather than $6.50 and that there was no record evidence to support the hourly figure used by the jury. As to the setoff, it argued that without it the verdict would duplicate the settlement amount. The trial judge denied the remittitur but granted the setoff.
On appeal, Builder's Square raises several issues, but we find it necessary to address only two: (1) whether an employer is entitled to specific notice requesting preservation of evidence in order to be held liable for spoliation of evidence under section 440.39(7); and (2) whether the damages award for future lost wages is excessive. On cross appeal, along with another issue, plaintiff appeals the setoff. We affirm the trial court's ruling as to the sufficiency of the notice for preservation of the evidence and the refusal of the trial court to grant a remittitur or a new trial on the future lost wages; on the cross appeal, however, we reverse the trial court's grant of a setoff.
I.
Plaintiff was an employee of Builder's Square when he fell off the ladder. Under Florida's Workers Compensation law, an employer is generally entitled to immunity from tort claims by its employees if it has otherwise complied with the Workers Compensation law. See § 440.11, Fla. Stat. (1997). At the same time, an-injured employee is permitted to maintain a claim against third parties whose negligence or intentional conduct may have contributed to or caused an injury. See § 440.39(1), Fla. Stat. (1997). The same statute imposes a duty, however, on an employer to cooperate with an employee in maintaining a claim against a third party. See § 440.39(7), Fla. Stat. (1997). An employer's duty of cooperation with an employee in the maintenance of a suit against a third party includes a duty to preserve evidence critical to the suit. See General Cinema Beverages of Miami Inc. v. Mortimer, 689 So.2d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). One of the reasons the employer is obligated to cooperate with the injured employee's pursuit of a third party tort action is that the employer is entitled to recoup some of the compensation benefits paid from the employee's third party judgment or settlement. § 440.39(2), Fla. Stat. (1997).
In this case, Builder's Square argues that an employee must make a definite request to the employer to preserve specific, identified evidence before an employer may be held liable on a spoliation of evidence claim. See General Cinema, 689 So.2d at 279 ("This must necessarily include a duty to preserve evidence, at least where, as here, there has been a timely request for preservation [emphasis supplied].") We think Builder's Square reads the statute too narrowly.
The facts in this case show that plaintiff notified his employer on the date of the injury that he had slipped or fallen from one of the ladders used in the store. Builder's Square argues that because it had 12 ladders on the premises that day, and that plaintiff did not specifically identify which ladder was involved, it had insufficient notice to charge it with a duty to preserve evidence.
The evidence shows that Builder's Square knew on the day of the incident or within 3 days thereafter that one of its ladders was actually involved in the fall.' Before it proceeded to dispose of any of them, the statutory duty of cooperation with its injured employee should certainly have suggested that it consult with the employee. We think that while actual notice of identified evidence is the clearest form, an employer can similarly be charged with notice when the circumstances are such that it should have known that certain evidence could conceivably be critical to an employee's claim. The failure of Builder's Square to consult with plaintiff before disposing of the ladder could have been understood by the jury as a violation of the duty to preserve. Thus, we agree that plaintiff presented a jury question as to the sufficiency of the notice.
II.
Builder's Square then argues that the jury's verdict on damages represents an implicit but clear rejection of the model using the previous earnings as a carpenter for calculating future lost wages. We disagree. Lost earning capacity is intended not to merely compensate for the loss of the wage that was being earned at the time of the injury, but also, for lost wages that the injured party was capable' of earning. In this regard, there is no requirement that the jury had to choose either the amount that plaintiff had earned at Builder's Square or the amount that he had earned as a carpenter. Rather, it was free to pick any figure between the two, including $8 per hour. The fact the jury decided to award plaintiff an amount based on an analysis using an $8 per hour salary at Builder's Square does not make the award any less valid as a compromise of the jurors. The evidence clearly supports this figure, and it will not be set aside. See Tobias v. Osorio, 681 So.2d 905 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
III.
On cross appeal, plaintiff argues that it was error for the trial judge to permit the fact and amount of the settlement with the manufacturer to be disclosed to the jury. He bases his argument on section 768.041 which states in pertinent part that:
"(1) A release or covenant not to sue as to one (1) tortfeasor for . personal injury of . any person shall not operate to release or discharge the liability of any other tortfeasor who may be ha-ble for the same tort .
"(2) At trial, if any defendant shows the court that the plaintiff . has delivered a release or covenant not to sue to any person, . in partial satisfaction of the damages sued for, the court shah set off this amount from the amount of any judgment to which the plaintiff would be otherwise entitled at the time of rendering judgment and enter judgment accordingly.
"(3) The fact of such a release or covenant not to sue . shall not be made known to the jury." [emphasis supplied]
For our purposes, the key words from the statute are "for the same tort" and "of the damages sued for." The issue turns on whether the tort for spoliation of evidence against Builder's Square is the same tort within the meaning of the statute as the products liability claim against the manufacturer and whether the damages sued for under spoliation of evidence were the same as those sued for in the products liability claim.
This court has joined the Third District in recognizing that the tort of spoliation of evidence exists in Florida. St Mary's Hospital v. Brinson, 685 So.2d 33 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Brown v. City of Delray Beach, 652 So.2d 1150 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Sponco Mfg., Inc. v. Alcover, 656 So.2d 629 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), rev. dismissed, 679 So.2d 771 (Fla.1996); Continental Ins. Co. v. Herman, 576 So.2d 313 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), rev. denied, 598 So.2d 76 (Fla.1991); Miller v. Allstate Ins. Co., 573 So.2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), rev. denied, 581 So.2d 1307 (Fla.1991); Bondu v. Gurvich, 473 So.2d 1307 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), rev. denied sub nom. Cedars of Lebanon Hosp. Care Ctr., Inc. v. Bondu, 484 So.2d 7 (Fla.1986). In St. Mary's, we adopted the Third District's "characterization of this tort's necessary elements." 685 So.2d at 35; Herman, 576 So.2d at 315.
We recognize that there are no cases in Florida deciding whether a spoliation of evidence claim is the same tort for the same damages as the underlying products liability claim that has been affected by the deprivation of crucial evidence. But see Hertz Corp., v. Hellens, 140 So.2d 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962) (§ 768.041 applies to all tortfeasors, whether joint or several, including vicarious tortfeasors). From the very nature of the spoliation claim, however, it would appear to us that the damages in a spoliation claim are derivative of the damages in a products liability claim whose viability has been spoiled by the loss of critical evidence. Hence, we conclude that, only for purposes of section 768.041, the spoliation claim is the same tort for the same damages as the underlying products liability claim substantially impaired by the loss of the ruined evidence.
Section 768.041(3) provides that "[t]he fact of . a release or covenant not to sue . [a joint tortfeasor] shall not be made known to the jury." From our discussion of the spoliation claim, we conclude that under section 768.041 the spoliator is properly deemed a joint tortfeasor with the defendant in the products liability claim. Clearly, therefore, it was improper under the statute for the court to allow the fact of the settlement as well as its amount to be disclosed to the jury. We thus reject Builder's Square's argument that the settlement was admissible as to whether the claim against the manufacturer was substantially impaired by the destruction of the ladder. Under the statute, the remedy is to set off the amount of the settlement against the award in the spoliation action.
The problem in this case is that, over the objection of the plaintiff, the $250,000 settlement was disclosed to the jury, and the trial court then refused to instruct the jury not to consider the settlement in awarding damages. Plaintiff argues that the jury should be presumed to have adjusted the award of damages in light of the settlement whose amount was disclosed to them. We agree with the Third District that the disclosure to a jury of a settlement with another tortfeasor ordinarily should be deemed prejudicial. In Balsera v. A.B.D.M. & P. Corp., 511 So.2d 679 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), the court stated that "[a]bsent any evidence to the contrary, we must assume that the jury considered this testimony in reaching its verdict, and therefore find that the trial court correctly refused to set off the verdict with these same payments." 511 So.2d at 681; see also Leisure Group, Inc. v. Williams, 351 So.2d 374 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). Likewise, in this case, we assume that the jury used the settlement in fixing damages and, thus, hold the trial judge erred in granting the setoff for the amount of the settlement.
Accordingly, we remand to the trial court for consistent proceedings.
POLEN and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
. The expert witness testified that the lost earnings analysis predicated upon plaintiffs employment as a carpenter assumed a wage of $16 per hour. The witness acknowledged that the plaintiff had indicated to him that the most he had ever earned as a carpenter was $12.50 per hour, but explained that the $16 per hour figure reflected the "1997 dollar value" of those earnings.