PHILIP H. BERGER v. COPELAND CORPORATION, LLC
2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 992
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Philip H. Berger sued his employer Copeland Corporation for workplace exposure to contaminated metalworking fluids; a jury awarded $5 million compensatory and $23 million punitive damages.
- Copeland moved for a new trial, arguing certain jury instructions were erroneous; the trial court granted a new trial because it erred in submitting Instructions 6 (negligence director) and 10 (a spoliation/adverse-inference instruction).
- Instruction 10 told jurors they "may, but are not required to, assume that the contents of the files destroyed would have been adverse" if a party willfully destroyed evidence.
- Berger appealed the new-trial order, advancing four points; the court rejects two summarily and focuses on Point III challenging the grant of a new trial based on Instruction 10.
- The appellate court concluded Missouri law long bars adverse-inference jury instructions (citing Hartman and subsequent Missouri authority), so Instruction 10 was erroneous and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial for prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Instruction 10 (adverse-inference for spoliation) was proper | Instruction 10 was an accurate, neutral statement of law and permissible | Instruction 10 was improper under Missouri precedent banning inference instructions | Instruction 10 was erroneous — Missouri law prohibits adverse-inference jury instructions |
| Whether the error from Instruction 10 was prejudicial | The instruction was neutral and did not create substantial prejudice | The instruction branded defendant a "bad actor," was leveraged in summation, and likely prejudiced the jury | Plaintiff failed to prove nonprejudice; new trial appropriately granted |
| Whether federal Eighth Circuit decisions authorize such instructions | (argues reliance on Hallmark/Stevenson) instruction follows federal sanction standards | Federal decisions apply federal law and sanction contexts, not Missouri civil-instruction law | Federal cases do not control; they do not justify use under Missouri law |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by granting new trial after giving the instruction | Trial court could offer instruction and should not then order new trial for following its own instruction | Trial court acted properly in correcting an error it had allowed | Granting new trial affirmed as within trial court's discretion and necessary to remedy prejudicial error |
Key Cases Cited
- Hartman v. Hartman, 284 S.W. 488 (Mo. banc 1926) (establishes prohibition on jury instructions that state adverse inferences or comment on evidence)
- Pisoni v. Steak ‘N Shake Operations, Inc., 468 S.W.3d 922 (Mo.App. 2015) (holds parties are not entitled to adverse-inference jury instructions for spoliation under Missouri law)
- Hallmark Cards, Inc. v. Murley, 703 F.3d 456 (8th Cir. 2013) (federal decision requiring explicit findings of bad faith and prejudice before adverse-inference instruction; emphasizes gravity of such instructions)
- Stevenson v. Union Pac. R.R., 354 F.3d 739 (8th Cir. 2004) (federal case outlining standards for adverse-inference instructions in spoliation/sanctions context)
- MFA Oil Co. v. Robertson-Williams Transp., Inc., 18 S.W.3d 437 (Mo.App. 2000) (places burden on party asserting nonprejudice when an erroneous instruction is given)