Court Opinion

ID: 9699705
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 20:47:21.914089+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:56.001295
License: Public Domain

GAULTNEY, Justice,
dissenting.
Respectfully, I dissent. If spoliation occurred, the offense is serious. Spoliation constitutes obstruction of justice. However, there must be evidence that a breach of a duty to preserve evidence occurred before the trial court is vested with discretion on how to punish the bad conduct. See Offshore Pipelines, Inc. v. Schooley, 984 S.W.2d 654, 666 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, no pet.). The trial court serves as factfinder when spoliation is alleged. The tidal court must determine whether the charged party is in fact a spoliator. Here, the trial court’s conclusion is recorded as follows:
The Court: [Y]our proposed instruction says: Wal-Mart lost, sold or—
[Plaintiffs counsel]: Discarded.
The Court: —discarded the reindeer, none of which I can — I don’t think there’s any evidence to support that any specific thing happened to it— well, the best evidence is that it was sold or that they were sold.
[Plaintiffs counsel]: Right.
The record supports the trial court’s conclusion, agreed to by plaintiffs counsel, that the best evidence is that the reindeer were sold.
The store sold its merchandise. The circumstances surrounding the accident did not put the store on notice that a dispute would develop later over whether the fallen reindeer were made of wood or paper maché. Plaintiff suffered a cut on his left arm which a store employee cleaned and covered with a band-aid. Plaintiff admits he told the store employees he was not injured. Was the store then under a duty to remove its merchandise from the shelf and safe-keep the reindeer for a later lawsuit? What is wrong with a store selling its merchandise under these circumstances? No evidence was presented to prove that a breach of a duty to preserve this specific evidence occurred. Because I do not believe selling merchandise constitutes an obstruction of justice, I would hold that the trial court erred in giving the spoliation instruction and would reverse and remand this case for a new trial.