Texas Supreme Court Issues New Framework for Spoliation Sanctions

by K&L Gates LLP

On July 3, 2014, the Texas Supreme Court issued an opinion intended to clarify the circumstances in which a trial court may impose sanctions for spoliation, including specifically the submission of a spoliation instruction to the jury. Brookshire Bros., Ltd. v. Aldridge, --- S.W.3d ----, 2014 WL 2994435, at *1 (Tex. July 3, 2014). A spoliation instruction (known in other jurisdictions as an “adverse inference instruction”) is a remedy for spoliation of evidence whereby the trial court instructs the jury that it may or must presume that missing evidence would have been unfavorable to the spoliating party.

Negligent Spoliation Justifies Spoliation Instructions in Only Rare Circumstances
In previous decisions, the Texas Supreme Court afforded great discretion to the trial courts to fashion spoliation remedies on a case-by-case basis. E.g., Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Johnson, 106 S.W.3d 718, 721 (Tex. 2003); Trevino v. Ortega, 969 S.W.2d 950, 953 (Tex. 1998).  The Court previously left open the question of the culpable mental state required to warrant the submission of a spoliation instruction. Brookshire Bros., 2014 WL 2994435, at *10.Under this framework, some Texas courts authorized spoliation instructions in circumstances in which the spoliating party was merely negligent in spoliating evidence. Id. (citing Adobe Land Corp. v. Griffin, L.L.C., 236 S.W.3d 351, 360-61 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth, pet. denied)).

Emphasizing that a spoliation instruction is a severe sanction with “the propensity to tilt a trial in favor of a nonspoliating party,” the Brookshire Bros. Court severely limited a trial court’s ability to impose a spoliation instruction upon a merely negligent spoliator. Brookshire Bros., 2014 WL 29994435, at *9. The Court held that, in cases of negligent spoliation, a spoliation instruction may be submitted only if the spoliation “irreparably prevents the nonspoliating party from having any meaningful opportunity to present a claim or defense.” Id. at *12. Such circumstances are “rare,” the Court emphasized, and occur only when the prejudice to the nonspoliating party is “extraordinary, denying it the ability to adequately defend its case.” Id.

Intentional Spoliation and Willful Blindness
Aside from the rare negligence exception, a spoliation instruction may only be imposed upon a party that intentionally spoliates evidence. Id. at *10. To be guilty of “intentional” spoliation, a party must act “with the subjective purpose of concealing or destroying discoverable evidence.” Id. at *11. Intentional spoliation includes “willful blindness,” where “a party does not directly destroy evidence known to be relevant and discoverable, but nonetheless allows for its destruction.” Id.

A finding of intentional spoliation does not dictate that a spoliation instruction must be submitted to the jury. Rather, a trial court, before imposing a spoliation instruction, must also conclude that “a lesser remedy would be insufficient to ameliorate the prejudice caused by the spoliating party’s conduct.” Id.

Application of the Court’s Framework
In Brookshire Bros., the plaintiff, Jerry Aldridge, was injured when he slipped and fell on a puddle of grease at a Brookshire Bros. grocery store. Aldridge reported his injuries to the store within five days of the incident. A store employee prepared an incident report based on Aldridge’s statements and the recollections of the assistant manager on duty at the time of the fall.

Aldridge’s fall was captured by a store surveillance camera. At the time of the fall, the store camera recorded surveillance video in a continuous loop that, after approximately 30 days, recorded over prior recordings. After Aldridge reported his injuries, Brookshire Bros.’ Vice President of Human Resources and Risk Management decided to retain and copy approximately eight minutes of the video, starting just before Aldridge entered the store and concluding shortly after his fall. The remainder of that day’s footage was eventually deleted pursuant to the operation of the continuous loop recording system.

Aldridge sued Brookshire Bros. for his injuries on a premises-liability theory. To satisfy his burden of proof, Aldridge was required to prove that Brookshire Bros. had actual or constructive knowledge of the grease puddle, which could be accomplished by showing that: (1) Brookshire Bros. placed the grease on the floor; (2) Brookshire Bros. actually knew of the grease on the floor; or (3) the grease was on the floor long enough to give Brookshire Bros. a reasonable opportunity to discovery it.

During discovery, Aldridge requested from Brookshire Bros. a copy of its surveillance video footage of the relevant portion of the store for the two-and-a-half hours preceding and including the slip-and-fall. Brookshire Bros. was able to produce only the eight-minute span that had been retained and copied; all other surveillance from that day had been recorded over via the continuous loop recording system. Arguing that the deleted video would have shown that the grease was on the floor long enough to give Brookshire Bros. constructive knowledge, Aldridge requested spoliation sanctions, and the trial court submitted a spoliation instruction. The jury returned a verdict for Aldridge, which the court of appeals affirmed.

The Texas Supreme Court reversed, finding under its new framework that the spoliation instruction was an abuse of the trial court’s discretion. Id. at *14. The Court held that there was “no evidence” that the failure to save additional video footage was done “with the requisite intent to conceal or destroy relevant evidence or that Aldridge was irreparably deprived of any meaningful ability to present his claim.” Id.

The dissent sternly criticized the majority for failing to find that Brookshire Bros. acted with willful blindness. According to the dissent, “under the Court’s definition of ‘intentional,’ a party that is aware of circumstances that are likely to give rise to future litigation but fails to take reasonable steps to ensure the relevant evidence is not destroyed pursuant to ‘routine practice’ may be found to have intentionally destroyed evidence.” Id. at *21. Thus, according to the dissent, Brookshire Bros.’ failure to copy a greater portion of the tape constitutes willful blindness that cannot be excused by the operation of the store’s automatic deletion loop. The dissent concludes that “the Court’s assurances that its spoliation framework encompasses instances of ‘willful blindness’ ring hollow given the Court’s application of the concept to the facts of this case.” Id.

In Brookshire Bros., the Texas Supreme Court significantly reins in lower court discretion to submit a spoliation instruction in cases of negligent spoliation.  In most cases, therefore, a court must find intentional spoliation. While the Court recognizes that willful blindness can justify a spoliation instruction and defines “willful blindness” broadly, it did not find that willful blindness was present under the facts presented in Brookshire Bros.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© K&L Gates LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

K&L Gates LLP

K&L Gates LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.