Austin v. Consolidation Coal Co.
501 S.E.2d 161, 1998 Va. LEXIS 83, 256 Va. 78 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Virginia law does not recognize an independent tort for intentional or negligent spoliation of evidence where there is no underlying legal duty, created by statute, court order, or special relationship, to preserve that evidence.
Facts:
- On May 20, 1995, Kenneth Austin, an employee of Consolidation Coal Company (Consolidation), was injured when a hose he was using at work burst in his hands.
- Austin received workers' compensation benefits, which legally barred him from suing his employer, Consolidation.
- Austin decided to pursue a product liability lawsuit against the hose's manufacturer and distributor.
- Consolidation refused Austin's requests to identify the manufacturer and distributor and also denied him access to the hose for inspection.
- Consolidation, however, granted access to the hose to experts for the manufacturer and the distributor.
- Consolidation subsequently destroyed the hose before Austin's experts had an opportunity to test it.
- Austin eventually discovered the distributor of the hose, Fairmont Supply Company, was a subsidiary or affiliate of his employer, Consolidation.
Procedural Posture:
- Kenneth Austin filed an action in the Buchanan County Circuit Court (a Virginia state trial court) against Consolidation to discover the identities of the hose's manufacturer and distributor.
- During a hearing in that case, the circuit court judge stated orally that an order should be entered requiring Consolidation to preserve the hose, but no written order was ever entered.
- Austin filed a product liability suit against the manufacturer and distributor in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia (a federal trial court).
- Austin then initiated a separate action in the same federal district court against Consolidation, alleging tortious interference with his product liability suit through spoliation of evidence.
- The United States District Court certified a question of law to the Supreme Court of Virginia regarding whether Virginia recognizes the tort of spoliation.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Virginia law recognize an independent tort for intentional or negligent spoliation of evidence where a defendant has no preexisting legal duty to preserve the evidence for the plaintiff's prospective civil action against a third party?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Hassell
No, Virginia law does not recognize an independent tort for spoliation of evidence under these facts because a fundamental element of any tort action—a legal duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff—is absent. The court reasoned that for a tort to exist, there must be a legal obligation, a breach of that obligation, and resulting harm. Here, Consolidation had no legal duty to preserve the hose for Austin's potential lawsuit against a third party. The court rejected several potential sources for such a duty, finding that: 1) the employer-employee relationship itself does not create this specific duty; 2) no state or federal statutes, including the Virginia Workers' Compensation Act, impose an obligation on an employer to preserve evidence for an employee's third-party claim; 3) Consolidation's act of investigating the accident did not mean it voluntarily assumed a duty to preserve the evidence for Austin; and 4) the trial judge's oral statement that the hose should be preserved was not a legally binding court order, as Virginia law requires orders to be in writing. Without a duty, there can be no breach, and thus no cause of action.
Analysis:
This decision establishes that Virginia will not create a new, independent cause of action for spoliation of evidence, aligning it with jurisdictions that prefer to address evidence destruction through other means like discovery sanctions or adverse inference instructions. The ruling strongly reinforces the foundational tort principle that liability cannot exist without a preexisting legal duty. For future cases, this means plaintiffs harmed by destroyed evidence in Virginia must first establish that the defendant had a specific obligation to preserve it, arising from a statute, contract, special relationship, or a valid written court order, rather than relying on a general tort of spoliation.
