A New York appellate court recently ruled in favor of a plaintiff in a personal injury case against Jet Blue Airways. The court determined that Jet Blue had failed to preserve crucial video evidence related to the plaintiff's slip and fall incident. This decision, issued on September 30, 2026, is significant for personal injury cases involving spoliation of evidence.
The case, Fernandez v. Port Authority of N.Y. & N.J., stems from an incident that occurred on July 18, 2021, when Ana Fernandez allegedly slipped and fell on a wet substance in a Jet Blue terminal. This incident led to her seeking damages for her injuries. The court's ruling emphasizes the importance of evidence preservation in legal proceedings, particularly in personal injury claims.
The dispute arose after Fernandez requested that Jet Blue preserve video footage of the incident shortly after it occurred. However, Jet Blue's legal department received this request weeks later, and the footage was reportedly overwritten by the airline's surveillance system before the request could be acted upon. This led Fernandez to file a motion for sanctions against Jet Blue for spoliation of evidence, claiming that the destruction of the footage hindered her ability to prove her case.
The case reached the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York after the Supreme Court in Queens County denied Fernandez's motion for sanctions in January 2025. The lower court ruled that there was insufficient evidence to support the claim of spoliation. Fernandez appealed this decision, arguing that Jet Blue had a duty to preserve the video footage and had failed to do so.
The appellate court, led by Justice Cheryl E. Chambers and joined by Justices Deborah A. Dowling, Lillian Wan, and Lourdes M. Ventura, reversed the lower court's decision. The court ruled that Fernandez had demonstrated that Jet Blue was aware of its obligation to preserve the video evidence by August 19, 2021. The court stated, "The appropriate sanction for any such spoliation of evidence would be an adverse inference charge against Jet Blue." This means that the jury could infer that the missing evidence would have been unfavorable to Jet Blue.
The court emphasized that the destruction of the video footage raised a triable issue of fact regarding whether spoliation had occurred. The ruling clarified that the plaintiff's request for sanctions was justified, given the circumstances surrounding the loss of the evidence. The court noted, "A party that seeks sanctions for spoliation of evidence must show that the party having control over the evidence possessed an obligation to preserve it at the time of its destruction."
This ruling is significant as it reinforces the principle that parties involved in legal proceedings must take their obligations regarding evidence preservation seriously. The court's decision to grant an adverse inference charge serves as a reminder that failure to preserve evidence can lead to serious consequences in the outcome of a case.
The impact of this ruling extends beyond the immediate parties involved. It sets a precedent for future personal injury cases where spoliation of evidence is a concern. Plaintiffs can now rely on this ruling to strengthen their arguments in similar situations where evidence is lost or destroyed, especially when they can demonstrate that the opposing party had a duty to preserve that evidence.
Going forward, this decision may encourage more diligent evidence preservation practices among companies and organizations, particularly those in industries where video surveillance is commonplace. The ruling serves as a warning that negligence in preserving evidence could result in adverse legal consequences.
As for what’s next, it is unclear whether Jet Blue will seek to appeal the appellate court's decision. The court's ruling allows for an adverse inference charge at trial, which could significantly impact the outcome of the case. There are no related cases pending that were mentioned in the court filing.