Opinion ID: 1309379
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: adverse inference instruction.

Text: Over the objection of the Institute, the trial court gave Instruction 9, [1] offered by Northside because the Institute did not introduce into evidence the control panel and alarm bell from the Institute's fire alarm system. Testimony at trial developed that the witness Rigsbee, a fire insurance adjuster, had, in February of 1976, two months after the fire, removed the dialer from the ruins of the burnt building. The dialer was tested and found to be in good working order. However, the control panel and alarm bell were not removed and were subsequently destroyed when the remains of the burnt building were razed. Northside argues that from the failure of the Institute to produce the alarm bell and control panel, an inference can be drawn that, if produced, they would have been unfavorable to the position of the Institute. We do not agree. In American Health Insurance Corp. v. Newcomb, 197 Va. 836, 842, 91 S.E.2d 447, 451 (1956), we said: `If a party to an action has available competent proof to establish a fact necessary and material to his success and fails to produce it, the legal presumption is that if produced the proof would not sustain his claim for relief.' (Emphasis added.) See also C. Friend, The Law of Evidence in Virginia § 105 at 219 (1977). The Institute's cause of action was premised upon the negligence of Northside in deactivating the alarm system and failing to restore the system to a working condition before leaving the premises on the day in question. With the circumstantial evidence adduced the Institute made a prima facie case of negligence, and it did not contend that the alarm bell or the control panel was or became defective. Since the alarm bell and the control panel were not necessary and material parts of the Institute's case, then the Institute should not be penalized by a possible adverse inference because these items were not produced at the trial.