STEVE ADAMS, as Special Adm'r of the Estate of Dixie Adams, Deceased, and Individually, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BATH AND BODY WORKS, INC., a Foreign Corporation, SHARON KUBASAK, an Individual, and GLOBALTECH INDUSTRIES, INC., a Foreign Corporation, Defendants-Appellees (Bath and Body Works, Inc., Counterplaintiff and Cross-Appellant: Sharon Kubasak, Globaltech Industries, Inc., and STEVE ADAMS, Counterdefendants and Cross-Appellees; Globaltech Industries, Inc., Counterplaintiff; v. Bath and Body Works, Inc., Sharon Kubasak, Steve Adams, and State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Counterdefendants)., 358 Ill. App. 3d 387

Summary

The fire occurred in a house that plaintiff rented from the landlord. The cause initially focused on two lamps. Later, the manufacturer's candle, sold by the retailer, became suspect. Without plaintiff's knowledge, physical evidence pertaining to the candle's location was removed from the scene and destroyed. Plaintiff's inability to produce that evidence led to the Rule 219(c) motions and dismissal of the complaint and all cross claims and counterclaims between the parties that had not been rendered technically moot. The court reversed. As defendants chose to proceed under Rule 219, the issues were governed by case law defining that rule, not a separate line of cases involving spoliation of evidence. Dismissal under Rule 219(c) was a sanction to be applied rarely and was proper only if plaintiff had acted deliberately or in unwarranted disregard of the trial court's authority. As plaintiff was initially unaware of the destruction of the evidence and had no part in its destruction, ...