Intentional Destruction of Evidence: Why Procedural Remedies Are Insufficient

Resource type
Authors/contributors
Title
Intentional Destruction of Evidence: Why Procedural Remedies Are Insufficient
Abstract
The authors argue that civil procedure sanctions and traditional common law procedural remedies are often insufficient or unavailable to deter tortfeasors from intentionally destroying evidence related to their wrongdoing and to compensate victim-plaintiffs. They explain why a civil cause of action is appropriate and necessary to address this serious threat to the viability of the court's fact finding process and ability to properly compensate injured persons.
Publication
The Canadian Bar Review
Date
1999-03-01
Volume
78
Issue
1 & 2
Accessed
10/4/26, 1:07 AM
ISSN
0008-3003
Short Title
Intentional Destruction of Evidence
Language
en
Library Catalog
License
Copyright (c)
Citation
Sommers, R. J., & Seibert, A. G. (1999). Intentional Destruction of Evidence: Why Procedural Remedies Are Insufficient. The Canadian Bar Review, 78(1 & 2). https://cbr.cba.org/index.php/cbr/article/view/3768