Court Opinion

ID: 9782137
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 18:01:44.32726+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:34:49.010488
License: Public Domain

DURRANT, Associate Chief Justice,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
¶ 37 I agree with Justice Nehring’s conclusion that it is unnecessary for us to determine whether to adopt the tort of spoliation of evidence in this case. As he correctly points out, given Skyline’s stipulation of liability in the wrongful death suit, “the Hills’ legal remedy is unaffected by the alleged spoliation of evidence,” because “any evidence spoliated by UPS and Liberty Mutual relates only to proving liability in the underlying action.” That is, the alleged interference with, or failure to preserve the integrity of, the scene of the accident has not damaged the Hills’ ability to recover for Mark Hills’ wrongful death.
¶ 38 I believe that this conclusion makes it unnecessary for us to examine the status of the tort of spoliation of evidence in other jurisdictions and to speculate about the policies that would animate this court to adopt it. I agree with Justice Nehring that where the evidence that a party claims was spoliated is only probative of an issue that the party has no need to prove, that party cannot state a claim for spoliation of evidence. This holding would apply regardless of whether, and to what extent, different facts might support a spoliation claim in Utah.
¶ 39 Given this conclusion, I decline to join in the portion of Justice Nehring’s opinion that he acknowledges to be a largely rhetorical exercise. While his examination of the status of this law in other jurisdictions is apparently very thorough, and while I do not disagree with the value of safeguarding the integrity of the judiciary, the consequence of such extensive dicta is that we risk advising lower courts and future litigants with regard to an issue we expressly decline to decide. Accordingly, while I concur with Justice Nehring’s conclusion that we need not determine in this case whether to adopt the tort of spoliation of evidence, I decline to join the remainder of his opinion.
¶ 40 Chief Justice DURHAM, Justice WILKINS, and Justice PARRISH concur in Associate Chief Justice DURRANT’S concurring and dissenting opinion.