No spoliation sanctions.

Where defendant destroyed evidence in the normal course of business and before knowing about upcoming litigation, spoliation sanctions were denied.

            In Calabria v. Corecivic of Tennessee, LLC, No. M2023-00424-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 6, 2024), plaintiff was visiting her son at jail when she asked for a chair to sit in. She was given a plastic chair, and when she attempted to stand up after sitting in the chair, the legs of the chair bent and plaintiff “slowly sank to the floor.” Personnel at the jail offered to get medical assistance for plaintiff or to have her complete a report, but she declined. One of the officers present completed a one-sentence incident report, and the chair was thrown away on the day of the incident.

            Plaintiff had no communications with defendant jail operator until she filed suit one year later. Through discovery, plaintiff learned that the chair had been thrown away, that security video footage had been overwritten in the normal course of business, and that the short incident report created by the officer had been lost and had to be recreated. Plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions based on the spoliation of evidence, which the trial court denied. Defendant jail operator moved for summary judgment, arguing that plaintiff had no proof as to the “nature or creation of the chair’s alleged defect or dangerous condition,” which the trial court granted. Both rulings were affirmed on appeal.

            When considering a motion for sanctions based on the spoliation of evidence, courts are to consider several factors, including “the culpability of the spoliating party…, including evidence of intentional misconduct…;” prejudice to the moving party; whether the spoliating party should have known that the evidence was relevant to litigation when the spoliation occurred; and the “least severe sanction available to remedy any prejudice caused to the non-spoliating party.” (internal citation omitted). Looking at each missing evidence item in turn, the Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court’s decision to refuse sanctions in this case.

            Regarding the chair, defendant had explained the importance of getting rid of broken items as soon as possible, as such items could be used as weapons by inmates. The trial court found that there was no “fraudulent or ill intent” in defendant’s actions in getting rid of the chair immediately. For the incident report, the Court noted that it was a one-page document and that there was no evidence it was intentionally misplaced. For the video footage, the Court noted that defendant had no way to know that litigation was imminent, and that the footage was overwritten in the normal course of business, as defendant had no known reason to preserve it at the time. Based on these facts, the Court of Appeals found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to impose sanctions.

            In a brief analysis, the Court also affirmed summary judgment for defendant. Defendant asserted that plaintiff “presented no evidence showing what the Chair’s alleged dangerous condition actually was, much less any evidence showing who or what caused the alleged dangerous condition,” and that plaintiff had no evidence showing defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of any such dangerous condition. Plaintiff argued that her son’s testimony that he had witnessed similar events when inmates sat in similar chairs created a question of fact, but the Court rejected this argument. The Court stated that “[t]he mere fact that a person falls from a chair, or that a seat or chair collapses, does not of itself establish negligence where there is no showing that it was defective.” (internal citation and quotation omitted). The Court wrote that even crediting the son’s testimony, plaintiff “has not shown that a dangerous or defective condition existed in the chair upon which she sat on the day of the accident. A plaintiff must submit proof as to the nature of the alleged defect or weakness or why the malfunction occurred.” (internal citation omitted). Because plaintiff presented no proof regarding the actual chair at issue, summary judgment was affirmed.

            As illustrated by this opinion, premises liability plaintiffs must have more than just proof of their injury. Without proof of a dangerous condition, a claim is unlikely to survive summary judgment. In addition, not every case of missing evidence will lead to spoliation sanctions.

            This opinion was released three months after oral arguments in this case.