difficulty of "proving what the spoliated evidence would have demonstrated and the extent to which it would have changed the outcome." NATES, supra, § 19.33(3). However, that problem is endemic to the tort of spoliation, and we are unconvinced that the problem is sufficient to overcome the overall fairness of the discounted damages approach. Holmes, 710 A.2d at 853. 11 . Of the twenty-six jurisdictions which have addressed the issue, "seven have recognized the tort in situations of intentional spoliation!)]” Levine, 104 W.Va.L.Rev. at 421 (footnote omitted). These include Hazen v. Municipality of Anchorage, 718 P.2d 456 (Alaska 1986); Hirsch v. General Motors Corp., 266 N.J.Super. 222, 628 A.2d 1108 (1993), holding modified by Rosenblit v. Zimmerman, 166 N.J. 391, 766 A.2d 749 (2001) (<HOLDING>); Coleman v. Eddy Potash, Inc., 120 N.M. 645,
holding that tort remedy for intentional spoliation was not novel but included under elements of tort of fraudulent concealment recognizing a tort for the intentional spoliation of evidence holding absent some independent tort contract agreement voluntary assumption of duty or special relationship of the parties the new tort of the intentional interference with a prospective civil action by spoliation of evidence should not be recognized in kansas holding comparative negligence not defense to intentional tort holding no intentional spoliation occurred where defendant was not on notice that evidence was relevant to claim