Brookshire Brothers, Ltd. v. Jerry Aldridge
438 S.W.3d 9, 2014 WL 2994435, 57 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 947 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court must determine as a question of law whether a party spoliated evidence by intentionally or negligently breaching a duty to preserve it. A spoliation jury instruction is only warranted upon a finding of intentional spoliation with the specific purpose of concealing evidence, or in the rare case of negligent spoliation that irreparably deprives a party of the ability to present a claim or defense.
Facts:
- On September 2, 2004, Jerry Aldridge slipped and fell in a Brookshire Brothers grocery store near a 'Grab N Go' rotisserie chicken display.
- Five days later, on September 7, Aldridge returned to the store to report that he had been injured in the fall, prompting the creation of an incident report which noted he slipped on grease.
- The fall was captured by a surveillance camera that recorded on a continuous 30-day loop, automatically erasing older footage.
- After Aldridge reported his injury, Robert Gilmer, a Brookshire Brothers executive, directed that approximately eight minutes of the video footage showing Aldridge's fall be preserved, but allowed the system to automatically record over the hours of footage preceding and following the incident.
- On September 13, Aldridge requested a copy of the video footage of his fall.
- By early October 2004, the unpreserved portions of the surveillance video from the day of the fall were automatically erased by the recording system.
- After initially paying some of Aldridge's medical expenses, Brookshire Brothers denied responsibility for the fall in June 2005.
- In August 2005, Aldridge's attorney formally requested two-and-a-half hours of additional footage, which Brookshire Brothers could not produce because it had been erased nearly a year prior.
Procedural Posture:
- Jerry Aldridge sued Brookshire Brothers, Ltd. in a Texas state trial court for premises liability.
- At trial, the court admitted evidence concerning Brookshire Brothers' failure to preserve the full surveillance video and provided the jury with a spoliation instruction.
- The jury found in favor of Aldridge and awarded him $1,063,664.99 in damages.
- Brookshire Brothers, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Texas Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding it did not abuse its discretion in giving the spoliation instruction.
- Brookshire Brothers then petitioned the Supreme Court of Texas for review.
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 the sanction of a spoliation jury instruction require a finding that the spoliating party acted with the specific intent to conceal or destroy discoverable evidence?
Opinions:
Majority - Lehrmann, J.
Yes, the sanction of a spoliation jury instruction is warranted only when the trial court finds that the spoliating party acted with the specific intent of concealing discoverable evidence, and that a less severe remedy would be insufficient. The court establishes a two-step framework where the trial judge, outside the jury's presence, first determines as a question of law whether a party spoliated evidence and then, if so, assesses a proportionate remedy. A spoliation instruction is one of the harshest sanctions and is justified by the presumption that a 'wrongdoer' destroys evidence because it is unfavorable; this presumption logically requires intentional conduct, not mere negligence. This approach aligns with Texas's requirements that discovery sanctions be proportionate and not excessive, reserving severe sanctions for flagrant bad faith. Here, there was no evidence that Brookshire Brothers intentionally destroyed the footage to conceal evidence; it preserved the portion showing the fall itself and allowed the rest to be erased per a routine system, which at most constitutes negligence. Furthermore, Aldridge was not irreparably deprived of the ability to present his claim, as other evidence such as testimony, the incident report, and the preserved video portion were available.
Dissenting - Guzman, J.
No, the majority's new framework improperly strips trial courts of their long-held broad discretion to fashion appropriate remedies for spoliation. The new rule, which largely prohibits juries from hearing evidence of spoliation and requires a finding of specific intent for an instruction, is a significant departure from Texas jurisprudence that should have been addressed through the formal rulemaking process. Brookshire Brothers' conduct constituted willful blindness; its experienced risk manager knew a lawsuit was likely and understood the relevance of the footage to the issue of constructive notice, yet consciously chose to preserve only a small, self-serving clip while allowing the rest to be destroyed. The majority's application of its own framework renders the concept of 'willful blindness' meaningless and creates a blueprint for corporations to shield themselves from liability by destroying unfavorable evidence under the guise of routine document retention policies.
Analysis:
This case fundamentally reshaped spoliation jurisprudence in Texas by creating a stricter, judge-centric framework. It takes spoliation determinations away from the jury and makes them a question of law for the court, significantly raising the threshold for obtaining a spoliation instruction from negligence to specific intent to conceal. This holding makes it substantially more difficult for litigants to secure a remedy for an opponent's destruction of evidence, particularly against corporate defendants with routine, automated data destruction policies. The decision protects parties from severe sanctions for negligent conduct but, as the dissent argues, may inadvertently incentivize 'willful blindness' in the preservation of potentially unfavorable electronic evidence.
