## Facts

- Lisa Goff was severely injured in a head-on collision with a tractor-trailer driven by an employee of Harold Ives Trucking Company, Inc.
- The Goffs sued for negligence in federal court and requested production of the driver’s logs for November 1997 and December 1–2, 1997, records required by federal law to be retained for at least six months.
- The Goffs learned that Ives had lost or destroyed some of the driver’s logs and alleged the logs were central to proving hours of service and potential fatigue.
- The Goffs amended the federal complaint to add a spoliation-of-evidence claim and sought punitive damages based on the alleged destruction of the logs.
- Ives admitted liability in the federal case; the jury tried damages only and awarded compensatory damages to the Goffs.
- The federal trial judge did not allow punitive damages to be submitted on a spoliation theory; the Goffs voluntarily nonsuited the spoliation count.
- The Goffs then filed a new Arkansas state-court action asserting only the spoliation claim, alleging that destruction of the logs impaired their ability to recover additional damages in the federal case.
- The circuit court dismissed under Ark. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), and the Goffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Arkansas should recognize intentional first-party spoliation of evidence as an independent tort cause of action.

## Decision

- The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal.
- The court declined to recognize intentional first-party spoliation of evidence as a separate tort.
- The court reasoned that existing remedies (adverse evidentiary inferences, discovery sanctions, and other deterrents) address spoliation within the underlying case.
- The court emphasized the speculative nature of proving causation and damages in a separate spoliation suit and the risk of duplicative litigation, especially where the plaintiffs already prevailed on the underlying negligence claim.

## Legal Principles

- Arkansas does not recognize intentional first-party spoliation of evidence as an independent tort claim for damages.
- Alleged destruction or loss of relevant evidence is addressed through remedies in the underlying litigation, including adverse-inference instructions and discovery sanctions.
- Separate spoliation actions are disfavored where proof of what the missing evidence would have shown, and how it would have altered the outcome, would require conjecture and invite duplicative proceedings.

## Conclusion

The court held that intentional first-party spoliation is not an independent tort in Arkansas and that parties must seek relief for missing or destroyed evidence through evidentiary and procedural remedies in the underlying action rather than by filing a separate damages lawsuit.


Goff v. Harold Ives Trucking Co., 342 Ark. 143, 27 S.W.3d 387 (Ark. 2000)