Trevino v. Ortega
969 S.W.2d 950, 1998 WL 288721 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Texas law does not recognize an independent tort cause of action for the intentional or negligent spoliation of evidence by a party to a lawsuit; such conduct is to be remedied by the trial court within the context of the underlying litigation through sanctions or jury instructions.
Facts:
- In 1974, Linda Ortega was born, and her father, Genaro Ortega, alleged that medical malpractice occurred during the delivery.
- The attending physician was Dr. Michael Aleman, and Dr. Jorge Trevino was also involved in her care at the McAllen Maternity Clinic.
- In 1988, Genaro Ortega sued Drs. Aleman and Trevino, along with the clinic, for medical malpractice.
- During the discovery phase of the malpractice suit, Ortega learned that Linda's medical records from her birth had been destroyed.
- Dr. Trevino was the party alleged to have destroyed the records.
- Dr. Aleman testified that he had no specific recollection of the delivery, making the missing records critical.
- Ortega's medical expert stated he could not form an opinion on the defendants' negligence without the destroyed records.
Procedural Posture:
- Genaro Ortega sued Dr. Jorge Trevino and others in a Texas district court (trial court) for medical malpractice.
- Ortega then filed a separate lawsuit in a different trial court against only Dr. Trevino, alleging intentional or negligent spoliation of evidence.
- Trevino filed a special exception in the spoliation case, arguing that Ortega failed to state a valid cause of action.
- The trial court sustained Trevino's special exception and, after Ortega declined to amend his lawsuit, dismissed the case.
- Ortega, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the court of appeals.
- The court of appeals, siding with Ortega, reversed the trial court's dismissal, holding that Texas does recognize an independent cause of action for spoliation of evidence.
- Trevino, as appellant, then appealed that decision to the Supreme Court of Texas.
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 Texas law recognize an independent tort cause of action for the intentional or negligent spoliation of evidence by a party to the underlying litigation?
Opinions:
Majority - Enoch, J.
No. Texas law does not recognize spoliation of evidence as an independent tort cause of action. The court declined to create a new tort, reasoning that doing so would lead to duplicative litigation and allow for collateral attacks on final judgments. The court framed spoliation not as a source of independent injury, but as an evidentiary issue that is best remedied within the lawsuit in which the spoliation is relevant. The majority noted that damages for such a tort would be inherently speculative. The court concluded that existing remedies, such as the spoliation inference jury instruction and discovery sanctions under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, are adequate to address the harm caused by evidence destruction.
Concurring - Baker, J.
No. While agreeing with the Court's conclusion not to recognize a separate tort, this opinion writes separately to emphasize that existing remedies are adequate and to provide guidance on when they should be applied. The concurrence argues that trial courts should act to remedy spoliation when a party breaches a duty to preserve evidence, whether that duty arises from statute, regulation, or common law, and whether the breach was intentional or negligent. This duty to preserve can arise pre-litigation, once litigation is reasonably foreseeable. The opinion outlines a framework for trial courts to determine whether spoliation occurred and then to apply appropriate remedies, such as sanctions or a spoliation presumption instruction, to level the evidentiary playing field and deter future misconduct.
Analysis:
This case definitively establishes that in Texas, spoliation of evidence by a party is not an independent tort but an evidentiary matter to be handled within the underlying case. The decision prevents the creation of 'satellite litigation' where parties could relitigate issues from a primary lawsuit under the guise of a spoliation claim. By rejecting the tort, the court places significant responsibility on trial judges to use their discretion and existing tools—sanctions and jury instructions—to police discovery abuse and remedy the prejudice caused by destroyed evidence. The concurrence provides a detailed roadmap for how trial courts should analyze spoliation claims, which has proven influential in subsequent cases addressing the scope and application of these remedies.
