Court Opinion

ID: 9692674
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 16:00:16.059528+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:36.000021
License: Public Domain

Murphy, P.J.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I dissent from the majority’s holding that there is no common-law duty owed by an employer to preserve evidence for an employee’s potential third-party action. However, I concur with the majority that the facts of this case do not establish that defendant intentionally destroyed evidence necessary for plaintiffs potential third-party cause of action.
I believe it is important to note that there are two separate and distinct torts which are potentially at issue in this case, neither of which has yet to be recognized in Michigan. These torts are (1) the negligent failure to preserve evidence for civil litigation1 and (2) the intentional interference with a prospective civil action by spoliation of evidence.2 The fact that these torts have not yet been adopted in Michigan is certainly no bar to the state’s jurisprudence’s recognizing them.
A common law duty exists when a court says it does because it thinks it should. By holding that no duty exists because no previous decision has recognized it, a court abdicates its judicial responsibility to a silent past. Holmes said that it was no less than "revolting to have no better reason for a rule of law than that so it was laid down in the *145time of Henry IV.”3 It is even more unacceptable to adopt a rule on the ground that no one since Henry IV has held to the contrary.
[Robertson v Deak Perera (Miami), Inc, 396 So 2d 749, 752 (Fla App, 1981) (Schwartz, J., dissenting).]
Dean Prosser in addressing the evolution of tort law explained:
New and nameless torts are being recognized constantly, and the progress of the common law is marked by many cases of first impression, in which the court has struck out boldly to create a new cause of action, where none had been recognized before .... The law of torts is anything but static, and the limits of its development are never set. When it becomes clear that the plaintiffs interests are entitled to legal protection against the conduct of the defendant, the mere fact that the claim is novel will not of itself operate as a bar to the remedy. [Prosser, Torts (4th ed), § 1, pp 3-4.]
In this case, plaintiffs complaint alleged that defendant had a duty to preserve the electrical box and that defendant’s conduct in discarding the box breached that duty. I agree that defendant, by virtue of being plaintiffs employer, was in a special relationship with plaintiff such that defendant was under some form of obligation to plaintiff relative to preserving the electrical box. Clearly, the question of whether a duty exists is one for the court to decide. Moning v Alfono, 400 Mich 425, 436-437; 254 NW2d 759 (1977). It is also important to note that the standard of care a defendant owes is not part of the duty question. Id., p 437. Our Supreme Court in Aliono explained:
The elements of an action for negligence are (i) *146duty, (ii) general standard of care, (iii) specific standard of care, (iv) cause in fact, (v) legal or proximate cause, and (vi) damage.
"Duty” comprehends whether the defendant is under any obligation to the plaintiff to avoid negligent conduct; it does not include — where there is an obligation — the nature of the obligation: the general standard of care and the specific standard of care.
Dean Prosser observed:
"It is quite possible, and not at all uncommon, to deal with most of the questions which arise in a negligence case in terms of 'duty.’ Thus the standard of conduct required of the individual may be expressed by saying that the driver of an automobile approaching an intersection is under a duty to moderate his speed, to keep a proper lookout, or to blow his horn, but that he is not under a duty to take precautions against the unexpected explosion of a manhole cover in the street. But the problems of 'duty’ are sufficiently complex without subdividing it in this manner to cover an endless series of details of conduct. It is better to reserve 'duty’ for the problem of the relation between individuals which imposes upon one a legal obligation for the beneñt of the other, and to deal with particular conduct in terms of a legal standard of what is required to meet the obligation. In other words, 'duty’ is a question of whether the defendant is under any obligation for the benefit of the particular plaintiff; and in negligence cases, the duty is always the same, to conform to the legal standard of reasonable conduct in the light of the apparent risk. What the defendant must do, or must not do, is a question of the standard of conduct required to satisfy the duty.” Prosser, Torts (4th ed), §53, p 324 (emphasis supplied).
In a negligence case, the standard of conduct is reasonable or due care. 2 The Restatement Torts, *1472d, §283, provides: "[T]he standard of conduct to which [the actor] must conform to avoid being negligent is that of a reasonable man under like circumstances.” "(T]n negligence cases, the duty is always the same, to conform to the legal standard of reasonable conduct in the light of the apparent risk.” Prosser, Torts, supra, §53, p 324. [Id., pp 437-438, 443.]
From the above quote, it is clear that the relationship between individuals is the touchstone of the duty question. In this case, the relationship between plaintiff and defendant as employee and employer, in my view, is sufficient to give rise to the employer’s having some obligation to ask plaintiff if he wanted the evidence preserved. The evidence was under the exclusive control of defendant and, because defendant discarded the electrical box, plaintiff’s potential product liability action is baseless.
There is no question that there have been tremendous changes in the law governing the workplace over the last few decades. Employees have numerous rights that never before have existed. Employees may seek redress for wrongful discharge,3 may demand access to information on the types of dangerous chemicals to which they are exposed at the workplace,4 and employees have broad protections under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 USC 651 et seq., and the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Act, MCL 408.1001 et seq.; MSA 17.50(1) et seq. These are just a few examples of changes in the law benefiting employees in the workplace. I do not believe it improper to impose a duty on employers that would serve to assist an employee in seeking *148redress for an injury which occurred at the workplace.
The record in this case reveals that the electrical box which exploded was replaced almost immediately and apparently was discarded almost as quickly. The majority states that plaintiff never advised defendant of his intention to file a third-party action until after the electrical box had been discarded. My response is that, due to the severity of plaintiff’s injuries, I doubt the formulation of a potential third-party cause of action within hours after the incident was plaintiff’s paramount concern. It is for this very reason that the burden relative to requesting the preservation of such evidence should not rest with the seriously injured employee, who is more immediately concerned with his physical well being, but, rather, the burden should be with the employer. In fact, I see no reason for the majority to point out that plaintiff never asked defendant to save the box. Under the majority’s "no duty” holding, defendant could ignore any such request from plaintiff with impunity. I also believe that the standard of care which defendant owed plaintiff was, at a minimum, to ask plaintiff if he wanted the electrical box preserved.
Moreover, I do not believe that it would unnecessarily burden the employers of this state to be required to meet this minimal standard of care when an employee is seriously injured by some potentially defective product which is under the control of the employer. In any event, it is my view that the duty threshold has been met in this case and a reasonable person’s standard of care would dictate that defendant ask plaintiff if he would like the allegedly defective product preserved.
*149As for plaintiffs intentional tort count, I agree with the majority that the facts of this case do not establish such a cause of action. Simply, the facts here do not show that defendant intentionally interfered with plaintiffs potential civil action. Therefore, I agree with the majority’s holding that the lower court was correct in dismissing plaintiffs claim that defendant intentionally destroyed evidence necessary for plaintiffs third-party tort action.
For the foregoing reasons, I would reverse the trial court’s order of summary disposition relative to plaintiffs negligence claim and remand the matter for further proceedings.

 The tort of negligent failure to preserve evidence for prospective civil litigation has been recognized at least implicitly. See Williams v State of California, 34 Cal 3d 18; 192 Cal Rptr 233; 664 P2d 137 (1983), and Smith v Superior Court for the Co of Los Angeles, 151 Cal App 3d 491; 198 Cal Rptr 829 (1984). See also Petrik v Monarch Printing Corp, 150 Ill App 3d 248; 103 Ill Dec 774; 501 NE2d 1312 (1986).

 Plaintiff frames this intentional tort in his complaint as interference with an economic advantage.

 O. W. Holmes, The Path of the Law, Jurisprudence in Action (1953).

 Toussaint v Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Michigan, 408 Mich 579; 292 NW2d 880 (1980).

 MCL 408.1011 and 408.1061; MSA 17.50(11) and 17.50(61).