Mark Spotted Horse v. BNSF Railway
379 Mont. 314
| Mont. | 2015Background
- Mark Spotted Horse, a BNSF machinist, sued BNSF under FELA after an engine-hatch struck his hard hat on Sept. 13, 2009; BNSF supervisors investigated and collected some physical evidence but did not preserve shop surveillance video.
- Diesel Shop had continuous digital video that automatically overwrote footage after ~15–30 days; supervisors viewed portions of one camera but did not request preservation from BNSF’s Resource Operation Center (ROC).
- Spotted Horse claimed he requested the video post-incident and later sought it in discovery; BNSF stated no timely preservation request had been made and video from the incident date was overwritten.
- Spotted Horse moved for default judgment as a sanction for spoliation; the district court denied default, restrained BNSF from introducing or referring to testimony about the videos unless Spotted Horse first opened the subject, and gave a jury instruction advising distrust if a party intentionally/recklessly destroyed evidence.
- Jury returned a defense verdict for BNSF; the Montana Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding the district court abused its discretion by failing to impose a meaningful spoliation sanction and by giving an improper duty-of-care instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court abused discretion by denying default judgment for spoliation of surveillance video | Spotted Horse: BNSF intentionally/culpably allowed destruction of material, prejudicing his ability to prove liability; default judgment was the only adequate sanction | BNSF: Destruction was inadvertent/not in bad faith and videos would not have shown the accident, so plaintiff not prejudiced | Court: No abuse in denying default, but district court abused discretion by imposing an ineffective sanction; remand for a new trial with meaningful spoliation sanction (but not default) |
| Whether jury instruction misstated BNSF’s duty under FELA | Spotted Horse: Instruction stating employer must only eliminate "unreasonable risks" understates FELA duty to use reasonable care | BNSF: Instruction acceptable; jury also received standard reasonable-care instruction (no objection to that one) | Court: Instruction No. 11 improperly stated duty and may mislead; it must not be given on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Oliver v. Stimson Lumber Co., 993 P.2d 11 (Mont. 1999) (spoliation threatens integrity of judicial system; courts may impose sanctions including default)
- Richardson v. State, 130 P.3d 634 (Mont. 2006) (abuse-of-discretion standard for sanctions and review deference to trial court)
- Schuff v. A.T. Klemens & Son, 16 P.3d 1002 (Mont. 2000) (default judgment appropriate where party acted willfully and in bad faith to shield truth)
- Culbertson-Froid-Bainville Health Care Corp. v. J.P. Stevens & Co., 122 P.3d 431 (Mont. 2005) (default judgment warranted for evasive and persistent discovery failures)
- Peschel v. City of Missoula, 664 F. Supp. 2d 1137 (D. Mont. 2009) (adverse inference instruction and lesser sanctions may be inadequate for deliberate destruction of best evidence)