Angelopoulos v. Volvo Penta of the Americas, L.L.C.
92 Va. Cir. 257, 2015 Va. Cir. LEXIS 201 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Dismissal is too severe a sanction for the negligent spoliation of evidence where the moving party cannot demonstrate significant prejudice and the spoliator did not act in bad faith. A lesser sanction, such as a cautionary jury instruction, is more appropriate where some prejudice exists but does not prevent the defendant from mounting a defense.
Facts:
- On June 30, 2011, the plaintiff was severely injured when her leg was pulled into the propellers of a boat owned by Richard Harris.
- The plaintiff claims a missing retaining screw caused the boat's shift cable to dislodge, resulting in a false 'neutral' reading on the control panel when the engine was in reverse.
- After the accident, the plaintiff's attorney, Mr. Wolcott, conducted three inspections of the boat without notifying the manufacturing defendants (Grady-White, Volvo Penta, etc.).
- During the first inspection on April 3, 2012, a mechanic hired by Wolcott, Stuart Bailey, deleted a diagnostic code from the engine's computer without recording it.
- During the same inspection, Bailey found a screw in the boat's bilge, which the plaintiff alleges is the missing retaining screw.
- Bailey also repeatedly manipulated the boat's shift cable, moving it in and out of its slot, thereby altering its post-accident condition.
- Rescuers at the scene of the accident had cut away much of the tow rope and removed the aft propeller and cone to free the plaintiff's leg.
- A paralegal later found a second, different screw on the boat's deck, which was mistakenly produced at depositions instead of the original 'bilge screw'.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff, Farley, filed a lawsuit in a Virginia Circuit Court against several manufacturing defendants, including Grady-White Boats, Inc., and the boat's owner, Richard Harris, for injuries sustained in a boating accident.
- During the discovery phase of the litigation, the manufacturing defendants filed motions for sanctions, requesting that the court dismiss the plaintiff's case due to spoliation of evidence.
- Defendant Grady-White also filed a motion to compel the deposition of the plaintiff's lead attorney, Mr. Wolcott, regarding his handling of the evidence.
- The Virginia Circuit Court held a hearing on the defendants' motions.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Should a case be dismissed as a sanction for spoliation when the plaintiff's counsel negligently allowed multiple pieces of evidence to be altered, lost, or destroyed, but the defendants cannot demonstrate significant prejudice from most of the alterations and there is no evidence of bad faith?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Everett A. Martin, Jr.
No. The case should not be dismissed because dismissal is too severe a sanction where the plaintiff's counsel's conduct, while negligent, was not in bad faith, and the resulting prejudice to the defendants was not so great as to prevent them from presenting their case. The court analyzed each piece of allegedly spoliated evidence, finding that for most items—the diagnostic code, the propeller, the tow rope fragment, and the screw—the defendants failed to demonstrate any significant prejudice, offering only conclusory allegations. While the court found that the mechanic's movement of the shift cable did prejudice the defendants by depriving them of the opportunity to see its post-accident position, it held that the appropriate remedy was a cautionary jury instruction, not dismissal. The court also denied the motion to compel the deposition of plaintiff's counsel, Mr. Wolcott, because deposing opposing counsel is a measure of last resort that should only be granted after all other means of obtaining the information have been exhausted, which had not occurred here.
Analysis:
This opinion reinforces the principle that spoliation sanctions must be proportional to the offense and its impact on the litigation. It highlights the high bar for the ultimate sanction of dismissal, requiring a clear showing of both bad faith and substantial, incurable prejudice. The court demonstrates a preference for lesser sanctions, like adverse or cautionary jury instructions, that can cure limited prejudice without depriving a party of their day in court. The decision also strongly affirms the protection afforded to attorneys from being deposed by opposing counsel, viewing it as a disruptive tactic to be permitted only in extraordinary circumstances when crucial, non-privileged information is otherwise unobtainable.
