determine whether it included the preservation of potential evidence following a customer injury. The courts found that the primary duty of the companies (a cab company and ski resort) did not extend to the preservation of their customers’ financial interests following an injury and therefore they did not have a duty to preserve evidence for potential lawsuits. Id. Applying these examples, the court in Elias determined that the hospital’s primary responsibility is dispensing healthcare and that requiring it to preserve all evidence for potential products liability suits would present too great a burden on its primary purpose. Id. A “fairness” analysis was utilized and the court considered the third-party’s “primary purpose” to determine whether a general dut . 206, 734 P.2d 1177 (1987) (<HOLDING>); Coley v. Arnot Ogden Mem. Hasp., 107 A.D.2d
recognizing a tort for the intentional spoliation of evidence recognizing the tort of interference with prospective contractual relations as a subspecies of the broader tort of interference with prospective economic advantage holding improper conduct to be an element of the tort of intentional interference with an advantageous business relationship holding that tort remedy for intentional spoliation was not novel but included under elements of tort of fraudulent concealment 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