In Silman v. Assocs. Bellemeade, 294 Ga. App. 764, 767 (669 SE2d 663) (2008), the Supreme Court affirmed this Court's decision and explained that a simple "potential for litigation" is not enough. Silman held that the simple fact that someone is injured in an accident, without more, is not notice that the injured party is contemplating litigation sufficient to automatically trigger the rules of spoliation. Silman, 294 Ga. App. at 767 (3). In Silman, a deck was destroyed shortly after it fell and caused injuries to a visitor. Silman, 294 Ga. App. at 765. The Court first explained that there was no evidence the landlord failed to keep the premises in repair or that it should have discovered problems with the deck. Id. Therefore, although the landlord destroyed the deck after the accident, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying sanctions for spoliation because, without more, the deck accident was not enough to put one on notice of "contemplated litigation." Id. at 767.