Trull v. Volkswagen

United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1999 · Evidence

EvidenceSpoliationExpert testimonySubsequent remedial measuresCertificationCrashworthinessspoliationseat-belt evidence

Facts

The Trull family was involved in a winter collision while riding in a Volkswagen Vanagon; one child died and two family members suffered severe brain injuries. In this products-liability action, plaintiffs alleged that the Vanagon's design enhanced their injuries, principally because it was a forward-control vehicle lacking sufficient frontal protection and because the rear bench seats had lap belts but no shoulder belts. Before trial, the Vanagon had been disposed of by the family's insurer, leaving Volkswagen unable to inspect the vehicle, including the seat belts whose post-accident condition plaintiffs wanted to prove through testimony. Plaintiffs also sought to introduce evidence concerning a later Volkswagen Eurovan design, expert testimony based on fatal-accident data was admitted for Volkswagen, and a diagram used by plaintiffs in an earlier lawsuit was admitted to show an inconsistent prior position about the crash angle.

Issue

Did the district court abuse its discretion in excluding or admitting the challenged evidence, including evidence affected by destruction of the Vanagon, Eurovan design evidence, expert testimony based on FARS data, evidence from a prior lawsuit, and agency correspondence? Also, under New Hampshire law in a crashworthiness case, must the plaintiff prove the specific nature and extent of enhanced injuries, or does the burden of apportionment shift to the defendant once the plaintiff proves causation?

Rule

A district court may impose spoliation sanctions, including exclusion of evidence, even absent bad faith if evidence was negligently mishandled and the opposing party is prejudiced. Public-agency data compilations may support expert testimony under Rules 803(8) and 703, and evidentiary rulings under Rule 403 are reviewed for abuse of discretion. Where state law on a dispositive and policy-sensitive issue is unsettled, a federal court sitting in diversity may certify the question to the state's highest court.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

After a rollover near Boise, Idaho, Lena Morris considered suing the van manufacturer. While the wreck sat in her insurer's storage lot, she inspected it, believed the rear buckle had failed, and discussed taking photographs, but the insurer later sold the van for scrap before the manufacturer could inspect it. Lena then offers her own testimony that the buckle was broken after the crash.

If the manufacturer moves to exclude Lena's testimony about the buckle's post-crash condition, how should the court most likely rule?

Explanation. The majority approved exclusion as a spoliation sanction where evidence was at least negligently lost and the opponent was prejudiced in being unable to inspect and challenge testimony about post-accident condition. Bad faith is not required, and the fact that both sides lacked the item does not eliminate prejudice when the proponent still seeks to introduce condition evidence the opponent cannot test. (Derived from Trull v. Volkswagen (n.d.).)