Torts: “Loss of Chance”: Claim Limited to Medical Malpractice

For more than a century, the debate has raged over whether Mrs. O'Leary and her famous cow truly started The Great Chicago Fire of 1871. Were the tragic events of that conflagration to happen today, someone would ask Mrs. O'Leary to produce the "RFID" chip in her bovine. (You know they would). They would contend that this key evidence could show the whereabouts and movement of the cow at the time the fire began. When she could not produce it, they would claim not only that she started the fire that destroyed a swath of Chicago, but that she also destroyed the evidence of her guilt. They would cry "spoliation."

"Spoliation" is the legal term for the improper destruction or alteration of evidence to prevent its use in litigation. It is also an ugly word and its presence in litigation can lead to ugly results. While this doctrine has existed in some form or the other for hundreds of years, understanding the concept may prove to be even more important now in a time when reams of documents can be stored on a "zip drive" smaller than a stick of gum and information can be maintained in a multiplicity of ways previously unthinkable.

To prove spoliation, a litigant must demonstrate that their adversary in litigation: (1) knew of a lawsuit or had a reasonable expectation that a lawsuit would follow; (2) failed to produce relevant evidence without an explanation; and, (3) participated in intentional conduct to alter, secret, or destroy the evidence. It is important to note that a defendant is not responsible under the doctrine of spoliation when the defendant’s failure to produce evidence is adequately explained.

A party who discovers that evidence has been spoliated has options. They may ask the court to enter an adverse presumption. If allowed, a court may instruct the jury that the missing or altered evidence would have been unfavorable to the party who destroyed it. Depending upon the nature and relevancy of the evidence, the court may have grounds to strike claims or defenses relevant to the evidence.

Another option is to file a formal claim against the party who spoliated the evidence. This type of claim alleges that the alleged “spoliator” impaired a party's ability to win or defend a law suit. In Louisiana, all five appellate circuit courts have recognized the tort of spoliation.

The issues surrounding spoliation have been magnified by technology. Meaningful information can now be found on almost anything: "smart refrigerators"; product sensors; a car's "black box" that may reveal the speed at the time of impact; SMS information on a phone, computer, or tablet; and on and on. Consider further the increasing scope of surveillance video recorded at businesses, schools, hospitals, and even homes, which is complicated by the fact that many systems automatically "write over" prior video in a matter of days, weeks, or months.

In short, it’s a good time for everyone to understand the doctrine of spoliation. The chance that some party will loudly proclaim that your spoliation of evidence adversely affected their case continues to increase. Being aware of the potential spoliation issues that may arise when a suit has been filed, or is expected to be filed, may save your case. It may also save you the time, money, and distraction involved in defending a claim that you have spoliated key evidence.

As a general rule of Louisiana law, a plaintiff cannot recover general damages for mental disturbance or distress unless the defendant’s act also causes physical injury, illness, or some other physical consequence. However, in Spencer v. Valero Refining Meraux, LLC, the Louisiana Supreme Court recently reexamined the circumstances under which a limited exception to this general rule may apply.

The Spencer case involved an explosion and fire that occurred shortly after midnight at the Valero refinery in Meraux, Louisiana. The plaintiffs claimed Valero should be liable for negligent infliction of emotional distress. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged they heard loud sounds, experienced anxiety, and had difficulty sleeping after the event. None of the plaintiffs received any medical treatment or experienced physical injury/symptoms. The defendant argued that the plaintiffs could not recover damages under these circumstances.

The court held that recovery for negligent infliction of emotional distress is not precluded under Louisiana law. However, the court also cautioned that not every act that causes some harm also yields liability and compensatory damages. It held that Louisiana courts must also consider the goal set forth under Louisiana law to prevent “spurious” or false claims when examining these types of actions.

In review of the plaintiffs’ claims, the court cited Moresi v. State Through Dept. of Wildlife & Fisheries, to show that the plaintiffs were required to establish “the especial likelihood of genuine and serious mental distress, arising from the special circumstances, which serves as a guarantee that the claim is not spurious.” The Spencer court held evidence of generalized fear or evidence of mere inconvenience is not enough to show that a plaintiff’s distress is “serious.” The court added that this rule must be “stringently applied,” because these types of cases, though fact intensive, are inherently speculative in nature.

In review of the facts presented in Spencer, the court found that Valero owed a duty to the plaintiffs and breached the “duty it owed, which was a cause-in-fact of plaintiffs’ generalized fear and anxiety.” However, the plaintiffs failed to produce evidence to show that their complaints, which included anxiety and difficulty sleeping, were sufficiently “serious” to support an award for negligent infliction of emotional distress, and their claims were dismissed. Although the result in Spencer may be limited to its facts, the Court’s decision appears to align with the general rule that a plaintiff usually cannot recover general damages for emotional distress in Louisiana absent an accompanying injury.

References:

Spencer v. Valero Refining Meraux, LLC, 2022-00469 (La. 1/27/23), 356 So. 3d 936.

Moresi v. State Through Dept. of Wildlife & Fisheries, 567 So.2d 1801 (La 1990).

On August 28, 2015, the Louisiana Supreme Court denied a Writ Application in Leandro Carias v. Vernon A. Loren, et al. This denial signifies that the "sudden emergency" defense may be properly applied at the summary judgment level. The defense in the Carias litigation was handled by Keogh Cox attorneys Gracella Gail Simmons and Collin J. LeBlanc.

In Carias, the defendant operated his 18-wheeler traveling eastbound over the Mississippi River Bridge when, according to his testimony, a "phantom driver" abruptly entered into his lane of travel and forcefully applied their brakes. In the sliver of time allowed, the defendant sought to quickly determine if he could safely move from his lane of travel. Incorrectly, he believed that there was sufficient space in the lane to his right and impacted a truck in that lane. In turn, that vehicle rear-ended the plaintiff.

A Motion for Summary Judgment was filed and won based upon the sudden emergency defense, which provides that one is not negligent when they fail to take reasonable measures to avoid an accident when they were presented with: 1) a sudden emergency; 2) which was not of their making; and, 3) which did not allow sufficient time for deliberation. In opposition to the Motion, the plaintiff cited testimony that the defendant was "following too closely," and contended that the defendant was therefore at fault and unable to seek the protections of the defense. In response, it was argued that whether the defendant driver allowed sufficient space between his vehicle and the vehicle to the front was non-material when it was the actions of the phantom driver which exclusively created the sudden emergency.

Plaintiff appealed the grant of summary judgment to the Louisiana First Circuit. Prior to Carias, the Louisiana First Circuit had questioned whether the sudden emergency defense could ever be used at the dispositive motion stage. On this subject, the Louisiana First Circuit stated as follows in Manno v. Gutierrez, 05-0476 (La. App. 1st Cir. 3/29/06); 934 So. 2d 112, 117-118: "while we cannot say that it would never be possible to apply the doctrine on a motion for summary judgment, our research has disclosed no cases from this court that have so applied it, and by the nature of the sudden emergency doctrine, it would seem rarely appropriate on a motion for summary judgment." Nevertheless, the First Circuit upheld the Carias summary judgment finding that, unlike earlier cases, there was no conflicting testimony regarding the defendant's lack of opportunity to assess the situation or take other evasive actions.

In the Writ Application to the Supreme Court, the plaintiff cited to a "split in the Circuits" concerning whether the sudden emergency defense may be used at the summary judgment stage.　 In response, it was argued that the decades of jurisprudence following the Louisiana Supreme Court’s establishment of the sudden emergency defense in Hickman v. Southern Pacific Trans. Co., 262 La. 102, 113-114, 262 So.2d 385, 389 (1972) demonstrate that the lower courts have not struggled with this doctrine and that nothing in Hickman nor the Summary Judgment Article prevent a consideration of the sudden emergency defense through motion practice.

As a practical matter, summary judgment may still be difficult to obtain in the context of the sudden emergency defense because of the highly factual context into which the defense is often sought for application. Nevertheless, after Carias, it appears likely that there is no legal prohibition to the use of the doctrine in support of a dispositive Motion for Summary Judgment

Written by:

Gracella Gail Simmons and Collin J. LeBlanc