Rankins v. System Solutions of Kentucky, LLC

Ct. of Appeals vacated Dist. Ct.’s Rule 54(b) partial final judgment that concerned Dist. Ct.’s dismissal of third-party plaintiff’s action against plaintiff’s employer, where third-party plaintiff sought damages for spoilation of evidence, under circumstances where: (1) plaintiff filed products-liability action against defendants-who had designed and installed winch system that plaintiff claimed had caused his personal injuries when cable within winch system broke; and (2) third-party plaintiff, who was also defendant in products liability action, asserted that employer had lost operative parts of winch system, which, according to third-party plaintiff, had hindered its defense in plaintiff’s products-liability action. Plaintiff’s products-liability action was still pending at time instant Rule 54(b) was entered, and Dist. Ct. dismissed spoilation action, after noting that plaintiff had settled his claim against employer and found that employer’s contribution payments to plaintiff were enough to discharge all of employer’s liabilities related to plaintiff’s injuries. Ct. of Appeals found that Dist. Ct.’s certification of appealability under Rule 54(b) of spoilation claim’s dismissal was improper, since plaintiff’s product-liability action and spoilation action were intertwined, and thus outside bounds of Rule 54(b), especially where spoilation claim depended on whether third-party’s defense in products-liability claim was actually hamstrung by loss of physical evidence. As such, third-party plaintiff must wait until products-liability claims are resolved before appealing dismissal of spoilation claim.