Thyen v. Hubbard Feeds, Inc.
2011 SD 61
S.D.2011Background
- Thyen, a Hubbard Feeds employee since 2003, suffered a work-related anaphylactic-like reaction on July 2, 2008 amid plant exposures.
- He sought to test materials around the plant for causative agents but Hubbard denied sampling and later destroyed materials after the initial request.
- Thyen filed a workers’ compensation claim; the Department of Labor denied on August 4, 2010.
- Thyen raised that Hubbard's failure to permit sampling and subsequent cleanup prevented proving causation.
- Hubbard’s destruction/alteration of potential samples occurred around June 26, 2009, prior to the hearing in January 2010.
- The circuit court affirmed the Department; Thyen appeals seeking relief based on spoliation of evidence and its impact on causation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether spoliation inference should be drawn against Hubbard | Thyen preserved spoliation issue at hearing | No explicit spoliation claim raised before Department/court | New hearing required to assess spoliation |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Engesser, 661 N.W.2d 753 (S.D. 2003) (establishes spoliation inference when destruction is intentional and in bad faith)
- Spesco v. Gen. Elec. Co., 719 F.2d 233 (7th Cir. 1983) (spoliation recognized in civil cases)
- Richter v. City of Omaha, 729 N.W.2d 67 (Neb. 2007) (recognizes spoliation considerations in civil context)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Johnson, 106 S.W.3d 718 (Tex. 2003) (spoliation inference discussed in civil proceedings)
- Manpower, Inc. v. Brawdy, 62 P.3d 391 (Okla. Civ. App. 2002) (spoliation considerations in civil litigation)
- Morris v. J.C. Penney Life Ins. Co., 895 S.W.2d 73 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995) (spoliation inference when evidence destroyed)