The Law

The incident occurred inside the hospital’s main entrance, where a large commercial‑grade mat covered the lobby floor. The plaintiff testified that her “right foot got stuck under that rug,” sending her forward and causing her face to strike the ground. A security officer, Angela Smith, helped her up and documented the event in an incident report, noting that Rosen declined medical treatment despite cuts on her face and hands.

The next day, Security Supervisor Timothy Panek reviewed footage from the hospital’s surveillance system. According to his sworn affidavit, three cameras covered the general area, but only one captured Rosen’s fall. He preserved a short, 12 second clip from that camera — beginning when Rosen entered the frame and ending when she stood up and walked away. The hospital’s system automatically overwrites footage after roughly 45 days, so the remaining video was eventually lost.

Panek stated that it was his “custom and practice” to preserve only footage that actually showed a fall or its immediate aftermath. He also asserted that the other two cameras did not capture Rosen’s fall “or any part thereof.”

Six days after the incident, Rosen’s attorney sent a preservation letter requesting “video and/or photos which show my client being injured” and any incident reports. The hospital promptly provided the preserved clip and the report, and invited counsel to request anything else. Rosen’s attorney did not respond further until filing suit more than a year later.

Rosen sued the hospital for negligence, alleging improper maintenance of the mat and inadequate warnings.

During discovery, she twice sought sanctions for spoliation of evidence, arguing that the hospital should have preserved more footage — both from the camera that recorded the fall and from the two cameras that did not. They argued that the additional video may have shown the condition on the mat. In the saved video, the mat was obstructed by what may have been a wheelchair.

The trial court rejected those arguments, finding no spoliation and later granting the hospital’s motion in limine to bar any mention of missing video at trial. Rosen also proposed a jury instruction allowing jurors to infer that missing evidence would have been unfavorable to the hospital, but the judge refused it.

The jury found in favour of the hospital.

The crux of Rosen’s appeal was her assertion that the hospital had engaged in spoliation of evidence. Specifically, she argued that the hospital should have preserved additional video footage from the camera that captured her fall, as well as footage from two other cameras in the area. Rosen believed this footage might have shown the mat’s condition before her fall, potentially proving her claim that the mat was disheveled and that the hospital was negligent in failing to address the hazard.

Under Indiana law, spoliation occurs when a party destroys, alters, or conceals evidence that it has a duty to preserve for litigation. To establish spoliation, the party claiming it must prove two elements:

1. Duty to Preserve Evidence: The alleged spoliator must have had a duty to preserve the evidence, which arises when litigation is pending or reasonably foreseeable.
2. Breach of Duty: The alleged spoliator must have negligently or intentionally destroyed, altered, or concealed the evidence.

If spoliation is proven, courts may impose sanctions, including an adverse inference instruction to the jury. This instruction allows the jury to infer that the missing evidence would have been unfavorable to the spoliator.

In 2025, the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the trial court abused its discretion. The appellate panel reasoned that earlier footage from the main camera might have shown the mat before a wheelchair partially obstructed the view, and that the hospital had not shown the other cameras lacked relevant angles.

The Supreme Court emphasized the deferential “abuse of discretion” standard. Even if the Court of Appeals’ interpretation of the evidence was plausible, he wrote, the trial judge’s interpretation was also reasonable — and that is enough to uphold the ruling.

The opinion notes that Rosen herself described the preserved video as “pixelated” and shot from “over seventy‑five feet away,” making it difficult to see the mat clearly. Given that limitation, the trial judge could reasonably conclude that earlier footage would not have been more helpful.

As for the other two cameras, the Court highlighted Panek’s unchallenged affidavit stating they did not capture the fall. Rosen offered a still photo taken years later to argue that one camera had a clear view of the mat, but the Court found that unpersuasive: the mat had been replaced every two weeks, and the still image showed only a corner of a different mat in a different year.

The justices also noted that Rosen’s attorney did not question the length of the preserved video when it was first provided, which the trial judge could consider when evaluating what was reasonably foreseeable to the hospital at the time.

Because the trial court reasonably found no spoliation, the Supreme Court also upheld the decision to bar Rosen from raising the issue before the jury. Allowing such arguments, the Court said, would have risked confusing jurors and implying the hospital had a duty to conduct a more extensive investigation than the law requires.

In a 4 to 1 decision, the Indiana Supreme Court ultimately upheld the trial court’s decision. The court found that the trial judge acted within her discretion in determining that the hospital’s actions were reasonable.

(Caryl Rosen v Community Healthcare System (Indiana Supreme Court, Docket: 25S‑CT‑217))

Argued: November 2025
Decided: March 2026

Feature Articles

If you have an opinion on the retailing or retail real estate industries, take this opportunity to share your thoughts. Articles should run between 400 and 800 words. Topics can, be general in nature, consumer observation or specific to retail concepts or practices.

Articles will be posted for at least one week and will then be placed in the Editorial Archives. All articles submitted will be read and considered but we cannot guarantee publication. Each published article will carry the submitters byline (if desired) and is a free service to our community.

Article ideas and suggestions are also always welcomed. Contact info@retailtenants.com