Stephenson v. Bryce W. Hotard Sunbelt Rentals, Inc., 271 So. 3d 190

Plaintiff sued after a motor-vehicle collision and sought exemplary (punitive) damages under La. Civ. Code art. 2315.4, alleging the other driver, Bryce W. Hotard, was intoxicated.
Relators (Hotard, Sunbelt Rentals, and Travelers) moved for partial summary judgment to dismiss the punitive-damage claim.
There is no direct evidence of intoxication (no positive smell of alcohol, no slurred speech, no blood test); plaintiff’s circumstantial evidence consisted of observations that Hotard appeared nervous, sweaty, and had “droopy” eyes.
Plaintiff conceded he did not even want to assume Hotard was intoxicated.
Plaintiff alternatively argued an adverse presumption of spoliation because Hotard did not report the accident or submit to blood testing.
The court of appeal denied writs; the Supreme Court granted relief, reversed the district court, and granted partial summary judgment dismissing the art. 2315.4 claim with prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether circumstantial evidence suffices to prove intoxication for art. 2315.4	Plaintiff relied on observations (nervous, sweaty, droopy eyes) to infer intoxication	Circumstantial facts do not exclude other reasonable hypotheses; no direct evidence of intoxication	Court held plaintiff's circumstantial evidence did not exclude other reasonable explanations and was insufficient to meet the evidentiary burden; summary judgment granted
Whether an adverse presumption of spoliation applies for failing to report or submit to blood test	Plaintiff urged adverse presumption because Hotard failed to follow employer policy and did not allow blood testing	No allegation or proof that evidence was destroyed or withheld; adverse presumption inapplicable	Court held the spoliation presumption did not apply; plaintiff was not entitled to the presumption

Ross v. Conoco, Inc., 828 So.2d 546 (La. 2002) (recognizing Louisiana's general public policy against punitive damages)
Chauvin v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 158 So.3d 761 (La. 2014) (statutes authorizing punitive damages are strictly construed)
Rando v. Anco Insulations Inc., 16 So.3d 1065 (La. 2009) (circumstantial evidence must exclude every other reasonable hypothesis with fair certainty)
Reynolds v. Bordelon, 172 So.3d 589 (La. 2015) (scope and application of adverse presumption for spoliation)
Lyons v. Progressive Ins. Co., 881 So.2d 124 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2004) (elements required to establish exemplary damages under art. 2315.4)