Question Your client is the plaintiff in a workers' compensation case She was injured in 2008 in state A In 2010, her employer destroyed all the business records relating to the client The destruction of the records was apparently accidental, not intentional They were destroyed, however, while the client's workers' compensation claim was pending Authority You have located the following authority, all of which is directly related to the issues raised by the facts of the client's case Idle v City Co a 1995 decision by the highest court of state A in which the court created a cause of action in tort for the wrongful destruction of business records The court ruled that a cause of action exists if the records were destroyed in anticipation of or while a workers' compensation claim was pending The court also held that a cause of action exists if the destruction was intentional or negligent A 2004 state A statute a law passed by thelegislature of state A that created a cause ofaction in tort for the intentional destructionof business records The statute provides that acause of action exists if the destruction occursin anticipation of or while a workers' compensation claim is pending 3 Merrick v Taylora 2005 decision of thecourt of appeals of state A The court ofappeals is a lower court than the state's highestcourt The court held that the term intentional, within the meaning of the 2004 statute, includes either the intentional destruction of records or the destruction of records as aresult of gross negligence 4 Davees v Contractora decision of the highestcourt of state B interpreting a state B statuteidentical to the 2004 state A statute Thecourt held that the term intentional, as usedin the statute, includes gross negligence onlywhen the gross negligence is accompanied by a reckless and wanton disregard for the preservation of the business records 5 A 2006 federal statutethe statute is identicalto the 2004 state statute but applies only tocontractors with federal contracts 6 An ALR referenceaddresses specific questions similar to those raised in the client's case Questions g Discuss the authoritative value of Davees v Contractor

The Answer is in the image, click to view ...

Answered step by step

Verified Expert Solution

Link Copied!

Question

1 Approved Answer

Posted on Jul 09, 2024

Question Your client is the plaintiff in a workers' compensation case. She was injured in 2008 in state A. In 2010, her employer destroyed all

Question

Your client is the plaintiff in a workers' compensation case. She was injured in 2008 in state A. In 2010, her employer destroyed all the business records relating to the client. The destruction of the records was apparently accidental, not intentional. They were destroyed, however, while the client's workers' compensation claim was pending.

Authority

You have located the following authority, all of which is directly related to the issues raised by the facts of the client's case:

Idle v. City Co. - a 1995 decision by the highest court of state A in which the court created a cause of action in tort for the wrongful destruction of business records. The court ruled that a cause of action exists if the records were destroyed in anticipation of or while a workers' compensation claim was pending. The court also held that a cause of action exists if the destruction was intentional or negligent.
A 2004 state A statute a law passed by thelegislature of state A that created a cause ofaction in tort for the intentional destructionof business records. The statute provides that acause of action exists if the destruction occursin anticipation of or while a workers' compensation claim is pending.

3. Merrick v. Taylora 2005 decision of thecourt of appeals of state A. The court ofappeals is a lower court than the state's highestcourt. The court held that the term intentional, within the meaning of the 2004 statute, includes either the intentional destruction.

of records or the destruction of records as aresult of gross negligence.

4. Davees v. Contractora decision of the highestcourt of state B interpreting a state B statuteidentical to the 2004 state A statute. Thecourt held that the term intentional, as usedin the statute, includes gross negligence onlywhen the gross negligence is accompanied by a"reckless and wanton" disregard for the preservation of the business records.

5. A 2006 federal statutethe statute is identicalto the 2004 state statute but applies only tocontractors with federal contracts.

6. An ALR referenceaddresses specific questions similar to those raised in the client's case.

Questions

g. Discuss the authoritative value of Davees v.Contractor.