SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARY

Virginia Case Summary

Davis v. Christy
Virginia Court of Appeals
No. 1124-24-4

Decided: March 10, 2026

When curing the spoilation of evidence, adverse inference jury instructions are only permissible upon a finding of reckless or intentional spoliation.

Background

Plaintiffs and Defendant were involved in an extended neighborhood dispute involving dog walking. In 2015, the Plaintiffs installed cameras in their front yard and came to believe that dog owners in the neighborhood, including the Defendant, were intentionally targeting the Plaintiffs’ property. Over the next few years, the parties’ relationship became increasingly tense, until Plaintiff’s brought suit against Defendant in 2018, claiming malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, defamation, nuisance, and civil stalking. The Defendant countersued for defamation and stalking. After a jury trial, the jury found in favor of the Defendant.

The Plaintiffs appealed claiming, among other things, that the Trial Court abused its discretion by failing to include an adverse inference spoilation jury instruction. Prior to the initiation of the lawsuit, the Defendant deleted numerous texts, photos, and videos, which related to the Plaintiffs’ claims. The Plaintiffs moved for sanctions and the inclusion of an adverse inference jury instruction. However, the Trial Court, interpreting the relevant Virginia statute regarding the preservation of evidence (Va. Code § 8.01-379.2:1), found that the Defendant did not act recklessly or with the intent to deprive the Plaintiffs of evidence. Further, the Trial Court found that while the Plaintiffs were prejudiced by the lack of text messages and photos, they were able to obtain the information from other sources, limiting the scope of the prejudice. As such, the Trial Court declined to give an adverse inference jury instruction.

Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed the Trial Court’s decision. The Court, examining the text of the relevant statute, reasoned that the code created a two-step framework for trial courts. First, a trial court must determine whether spoliation occurred and whether it was prejudicial. Second, the court must select a remedy which addresses the culpability of the spoiling party and reduces the prejudice. Here, the Court found that in cases of negligent spoliation, the remedy should be no greater than necessary to cure the prejudice. As such, without evidence that the Defendant recklessly or intentionally failed to preserve evidence, the Trial Court did not abuse its discretion when it rejected an adverse inference jury instruction, which would have permitted the jury to assume the missing evidence was unfavorable to the Defendant.

Questions about this case can be directed to Nicolette DeFrank at (571) 470-0395 or ndefrank@tthlaw.com.