Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. Midcap
893 A.2d 542 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court may not give a missing evidence adverse inference jury instruction unless it first makes a preliminary finding that the party intentionally or recklessly destroyed or failed to preserve the evidence when it knew the evidence was relevant to a legal dispute or was otherwise under a duty to preserve it.
Facts:
- In November 1995, the Midcap family purchased a kitchen range that used liquid propane gas from Sears, Roebuck & Co. ('Sears').
- The range was delivered and installed at the Midcap home; the identity of the installer was disputed, with the Midcaps recalling a Sears truck and uniforms.
- Southern States Milford Cooperative, Inc. ('Southern States') was the Midcaps' propane gas supplier.
- On April 8, 1999, four years after the installation, a propane leak from the kitchen range caused an explosion at the Midcap home.
- The explosion demolished the house and resulted in the death of Terry Midcap.
- When sued, Sears was unable to produce the 'load sheet' or any other record documenting the delivery and installation of the range.
- A Sears manager gave inconsistent testimony, first suggesting the document was misplaced during a move or destroyed under a retention policy, and later stating definitively it would have been destroyed after one year per policy.
Procedural Posture:
- The Estate of Terry Midcap and his family (plaintiffs) sued Sears and Southern States in the Delaware Superior Court (trial court) for wrongful death and survival claims.
- The Midcaps' insurer, Allstate Insurance Company, brought a separate subrogation action against the defendants, which was consolidated for trial.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs against Sears, awarding over $3.1 million in damages.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of co-defendant Southern States and against the plaintiffs.
- Sears (appellant) appealed the judgment against it to the Supreme Court of Delaware.
- The plaintiffs (cross-appellants) appealed the verdict in favor of Southern States.
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 giving a missing evidence adverse inference jury instruction, without a preliminary judicial finding that the party intentionally or recklessly destroyed the evidence, constitute reversible error?
Opinions:
Majority - Jacobs, J.
Yes. Giving a missing evidence adverse inference jury instruction is reversible error if the trial court does not first find that the party's failure to preserve the evidence was intentional or reckless. An adverse inference is based on the common-sense notion that a party who intentionally destroys evidence does so because it is unfavorable. This reasoning does not apply where evidence is destroyed accidentally or through a routine document retention policy without a culpable mental state. The instruction given in this case only required the jury to find that Sears had not 'adequately explained' the document's absence, which is an incorrect and prejudicial standard. In a close case like this one, where witness testimony was in conflict, this erroneous instruction created a substantial danger of unfair prejudice and was not harmless error, thus requiring a new trial.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the standard for spoliation and adverse inference instructions in Delaware civil litigation, aligning it with federal precedent. It clarifies that mere negligence or an inability to produce old documents is insufficient to warrant the highly prejudicial instruction; there must be a showing of a culpable mental state (intent or recklessness). This precedent protects companies that adhere to routine document retention policies from being unfairly penalized in subsequent litigation, while still discouraging the bad-faith destruction of evidence relevant to a known or pending legal dispute. The ruling emphasizes the trial judge's gatekeeping role in making a preliminary factual finding before giving such a powerful instruction to the jury.
Unlock the full brief for Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. Midcap