Jerry Scarbrough, Denise Steele, and Melissa Victoria Deaton v. Helen Purser, Sue E. Purser A/K/A Sue E. Van Zanten, Gary W. Purser, Jr., Joann M. Purser, and Elizabeth H. Tipton, 03-13-00025-CV

This is a personal injury appeal involving spoliation of surveillance video in Texas; the record concerns whether a spoliation instruction was properly given to the jury.
Wackenhut Corp. v. Gutierrez involved a charter-bus collision with a car; Wackenhut allegedly failed to preserve a key video that could have captured the impact.
Gutierrez moved for spoliation sanctions before trial; the court ordered a spoliation instruction, which Wackenhut did not timely object to before the jury read.
Wackenhut appealed after trial; the court of appeals affirmed, and the Texas Supreme Court granted review to address preservation and remedy standards.
Brookshire Bros., Ltd. v. Aldridge involved a grocery store’s video footage of a slip-and-fall; the store preserved only a portion and allowed the rest to erase, prompting a spoliation instruction.
The Supreme Court consolidated the spoliation framework across cases, holding that (i) spoliation findings are the trial court’s, (ii) a spoliation instruction is an extreme remedy to be used only for intentional destruction or, in rare negligent circumstances, irreparable prejudice, and (iii) the remedy must be proportional to the culpability and prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is a spoliation instruction preserved and reviewable on appeal?	Gutierrez contends preservation was satisfied by pretrial briefing.	Wackenhut argued preservation failed due to late post-charge objection.	Yes; error preserved.
Did the trial court abuse its discretion by giving a spoliation instruction?	Gutierrez/Davis contends instruction was proper given spoliation.	Wackenhut argues the instruction was appropriate under Brookshire Brothers framework.	Yes, abuse of discretion.
What mental state is required to justify a spoliation instruction?	Gutierrez argues broad discretion for spoliation sanctions.	Wackenhut contends intent-to-conceal is required.	Must show intentional spoliation; rare negligent cases may justify only if irreparable prejudice.
Are evidentiary disclosures about spoliation admissible and how should remedy relate to the act?	Evidence of spoliation should be admitted to prove conduct and prejudice.	Remedies should be proportionate and not overly prejudicial to merits.	Admissibility and remedy are governed by a trial-court-led framework; misapplication leads to reversible error.

Wackenhut Corp. v. Gutierrez, 453 S.W.3d 917 (Tex. 2015) (spoliation framework requiring a finding of intent or irreparable prejudice for jury instruction)
Brookshire Bros., Ltd. v. Aldridge, 438 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. 2014) (two-step spoliation framework; abuse of discretion to give spoliation instruction absent intent or irreparable prejudice)
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Johnson, 106 S.W.3d 718 (Tex. 2003) (spoliation remedy framework; broad discretion to trial courts; prejudice factors)
Trevino v. Ortega, 969 S.W.2d 950 (Tex. 1998) (foundational framework for discovery abuse remedies and spoliation considerations)
TransAmerican Natural Gas Corp. v. Powell, 811 S.W.2d 913 (Tex. 1991) (discretionary limitation on sanctions; remedy must be proportionate)
Cire v. Cummings, 134 S.W.3d 835 (Tex. 2004) (standard for proving spoliation and related remedies)