Gribben v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
2005 Ind. LEXIS 253, 824 N.E.2d 349, 2005 WL 646766 (2005)
Rule of Law:
Indiana law does not recognize an independent tort claim for first-party spoliation of evidence, whether negligent or intentional, as existing remedies are deemed sufficient and the disadvantages of creating a new tort outweigh potential benefits.
Facts:
- Patricia Gribben sustained injuries in a fall at a store owned and operated by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. allegedly failed to preserve a surveillance videotape from the time of Gribben's fall.
- Gribben asserts that the surveillance videotape would have been relevant to her tort claim for the injuries she sustained.
- Gribben claims that Wal-Mart's failure to preserve the videotape constitutes intentional spoliation of evidence.
Procedural Posture:
- Patricia Gribben filed a tort action for injuries against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.
- Gribben subsequently moved to amend her complaint in the District Court to add a claim for spoliation of evidence against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
- The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, finding no controlling Indiana precedent, certified two questions of Indiana law to the Indiana Supreme Court, pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 64.
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 Indiana law recognize a claim for 'first-party' spoliation of evidence, meaning if an alleged tortfeasor negligently or intentionally destroys or discards evidence relevant to a tort action, does the plaintiff in that action have an additional cognizable claim against the tortfeasor for spoliation of evidence?
Opinions:
Majority - Dickson, Justice
No, Indiana law does not recognize a claim for 'first-party' negligent or intentional spoliation of evidence. The Court determined that existing Indiana procedural and evidentiary safeguards are adequate to address the destruction of evidence by a party to the underlying litigation. These existing remedies include: (1) an evidentiary inference that spoliated evidence would have been unfavorable to the spoliating party; (2) sanctions under Indiana Trial Rule 37(B) for discovery violations, which can range from ordering facts as established, prohibiting evidence, dismissal, default judgment, to awarding attorney fees; (3) professional penalties for attorneys involved in destroying or concealing evidence under the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct; and (4) criminal prosecution for perjury or obstruction of justice. While acknowledging that other jurisdictions are split on recognizing a spoliation tort, the Court found persuasive the reasoning of courts, particularly the California Supreme Court in Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Superior Court, which rejected such a tort. The concerns raised included the dangers of creating new torts for litigation-related misconduct, the encouragement of a 'spiral of lawsuits,' the inherent uncertainty and speculative nature of proving harm and damages from lost evidence, the risk of erroneous determinations of spoliation liability, and the increased costs, burdens, and potential for jury confusion that such a tort would introduce. The Court concluded that the 'incremental additional benefits a tort remedy might create' are outweighed by these policy considerations and costs. The Court explicitly limited its ruling to first-party spoliation, declining to address third-party spoliation.
Analysis:
This case definitively establishes Indiana's rejection of an independent tort for first-party spoliation of evidence, aligning it with a number of other jurisdictions that have weighed the benefits against the burdens. The decision reinforces the reliance on existing judicial mechanisms—such as adverse inferences, discovery sanctions, and ethical or criminal penalties—to address the destruction of evidence within the context of the primary litigation. This policy choice reflects a judicial preference to avoid 'satellite litigation' and speculative damage assessments, which could increase litigation complexity and costs. For future cases, parties in Indiana seeking redress for spoliated evidence by an opponent must pursue remedies within their existing tort action, rather than filing a separate lawsuit for spoliation.
