Lopez v. Harley-Davidson

Background

Marcos Lopez was killed in April 2022 after losing control of a 2007 Harley-Davidson XL1200L Sportster motorcycle. Plaintiffs are Lopez’s estate and family members. They claim Harley-Davidson is liable under two possible design-defect theories: that the kickstand could lock in a deployed position and fail to fold upward after contacting the road, and that the motorcycle lacked an interlock safety switch that could prevent ignition or warn a rider when the kickstand was down.

After the accident, plaintiffs’ counsel arranged for the motorcycle to be stored by Interstate Services. Walkup, Melodia, Kelly & Schoenberger represented plaintiffs in this case and also represented plaintiffs in another motorcycle-accident case involving a different decedent surnamed Lopez. A bookkeeper correctly assigned six storage invoices to this case but mistakenly assigned five others to the other case. When that other case ended, its attorneys relied on the wrongly assigned invoices and arranged for the wrong motorcycle to be destroyed. The motorcycle destroyed was the Harley-Davidson involved in this case, not the Yamaha involved in the other case.

Harley-Davidson’s Motion

Harley-Davidson moved for terminating sanctions based on the destruction of the motorcycle before experts for either side could examine it. Terminating sanctions can end a case or dispose of claims because of serious litigation misconduct. The court explained that courts may impose sanctions for the destruction or loss of relevant evidence, including attorney-fee awards, dismissal, or an instruction allowing a jury to draw an unfavorable inference.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied the usual spoliation framework. Spoliation means the destruction or loss of evidence that should have been preserved. The relevant considerations were whether plaintiffs had a duty to preserve the motorcycle, whether the evidence was destroyed with a blameworthy state of mind, and whether the evidence was relevant. If spoliation occurred, the court also considered the degree of fault, the prejudice to Harley-Davidson, and whether a less severe sanction could prevent unfairness.

The court found no dispute that plaintiffs, through their lawyers, had a duty to preserve the motorcycle and that it could have been relevant to the claims and defenses. The court stated that the firm should have had safeguards to prevent destruction of evidence from the wrong case and that the conduct arguably crossed the threshold of spoliation.

The court nevertheless found no basis to infer that plaintiffs or their lawyers intended to destroy the motorcycle involved in this case or treated their preservation duty carelessly. The loss resulted from intentional acts in the sense that people intentionally carried out the disposal process, but the court characterized the destruction as fundamentally a mistake. That accidental nature weighed against punitive sanctions.

The court recognized that Harley-Davidson might have been prejudiced because inspection could have revealed post-sale modifications, repairs, or other information about what happened. It also stated that a jury might appropriately draw some inferences in Harley-Davidson’s favor. But dismissal would give Harley-Davidson a windfall rather than merely reduce any prejudice.

The court further explained that plaintiffs likely could show that kickstand contact with the ground immediately caused the accident without examining this particular motorcycle. Harley-Davidson could still argue that other factors contributed to the accident or injuries. The court also found that the missing motorcycle was not necessary to resolve the theory that the design was defective because it lacked an interlock switch, since the parties agreed this model was not built or sold with one. The kickstand-locking theory could also largely be proved or disproved through evidence about the design rather than the particular motorcycle.

Rulings

The motion for terminating sanctions was denied, without prejudice to Harley-Davidson proposing at trial a jury instruction about inferences jurors may, but are not required to, draw regarding additional evidence that might have been available for expert inspection. Judge Richard Seeborg left the decision about whether to give such an instruction, and its form, for trial.

The footnote also states that Harley-Davidson’s motion to seal portions of plaintiffs’ brief and supporting declaration was denied. Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion for leave to file a sur-reply was granted.