Brookshire Brothers, Ltd. v. Jerry Aldridge
438 S.W.3d 9
| Tex. | 2014Background
- Aldridge slipped in Brookshire Brothers, sustaining a spinal injury, and later sued on a premises-liability theory.
- Brookshire Brothers preserved eight minutes of surveillance video showing the fall but allowed earlier footage to be erased.
- Aldridge sought additional footage; Brookshire Brothers could not provide it because it had been recorded over.
- The trial court admitted spoliation evidence and gave a jury instruction suggesting lost footage could be unfavorable to Brookshire Brothers.
- The jury found Brookshire Brothers negligent and Aldridge was awarded damages; the appellate court affirmed.
- The Texas Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding the spoliation instruction was abusive and the evidence of spoliation was improperly admitted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether spoliation instruction was proper | Aldridge argues spoliation harmed merits and required sanction. | Brookshire Brothers contends preservation duties and remedies support the instruction. | Instruction was an abuse of discretion and improper |
| Admissibility of spoliation accompanying evidence | Evidence of spoliation is probative on duty and intent. | Such evidence is inappropriate as it shifts focus from merits. | Admissibility of spoliation evidence was improper |
| Scope of trial court discretion in spoliation remedies | Trial court should tailor remedies to remedy the prejudice. | Court should have discretion to craft remedies including jury instructions. | Court abused discretion; broad remedy framework invalid |
Key Cases Cited
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Johnson, 106 S.W.3d 718 (Tex. 2003) (duty to preserve evidence; broad discovery sanctions)
- Trevino v. Ortega, 969 S.W.2d 950 (Tex. 1998) (three-element framework for spoliation remedy; intent and prejudice)
- Trans-American Natural Gas Corp. v. Powell, 811 S.W.2d 913 (Tex. 1991) (sanctions must be proportional and relate to the offense)
- Cire v. Cummings, 134 S.W.3d 835 (Tex. 2004) (deliberate destruction justified severe sanctions; proportionality)
- Kia Motors Corp. v. Ruiz, 432 S.W.3d 865 (Tex. 2014) (harm from spoliation instruction; evidentiary impact)
- Nissan Motor Co. v. Armstrong, 145 S.W.3d 131 (Tex. 2004) (harm analysis for improper admission of evidence)
- Silvestri v. General Motors Corp., 271 F.3d 585 (4th Cir. 2001) (rare negligent spoliation cases may justify severe sanctions when prejuice irreparable)
- Residential Funding Corp. v. DeGeorge Fin. Corp., 306 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2002) (adverse inference standards for destruction of evidence)