Opinion ID: 1198908
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Refusal to instruct on TH's spoliation of evidence

Text: PCI challenges the superior court's refusal to give Proposed Instruction Number 40: The failure of [PCI] to present evidence that supports claims it and the City of Seward had against Acres/Hanscomb and EBASCO in the underlying case, should not be construed against [PCI], if failure to present such evidence is due to the failure of defendant attorneys to preserve such evidence. To the contrary, you are instructed that in the absence of such evidence, you may construe the missing evidence in favor of [PCI]. PCI argues that the proposed instruction was warranted in light of evidence establishing that TH, while acting as PCI's counsel, failed to preserve evidence developed by key witnesses who are now deceased. In Sweet v. Sisters of Providence, 895 P.2d 484, 492 (Alaska 1995), observing that for every wrong there is a remedy, we recognized that under certain circumstances, burden shifting may be an appropriate remedy for an opposing party's spoliation of evidence. See id. (quoting Smith v. Superior Court, 151 Cal. App.3d 491, 198 Cal. Rptr. 829, 832 (1984)). In the present case, however, PCI's claim of entitlement to a spoliation instruction suffers from a lack of supporting facts. The evidence assertedly lost by TH was evidence developed by PCI's own employees. This evidence was apparently within PCI's control at all relevant times. PCI has not shown that the loss of this evidence resulted from TH's negligent handling of the A/H-Ebasco lawsuit. [9] Nor has PCI made a convincing showing of actual prejudice. Our review of the record persuades us that the trial court did not err in refusing to give the proposed instruction.