## Facts

- Mark N. Silvestri was injured in a single-car crash while driving a 1995 Chevrolet Monte Carlo owned by his landlady in New York.
- The airbag did not deploy; Silvestri suffered severe facial injuries and alleged a defect in the airbag system caused “enhanced” injuries.
- While Silvestri was hospitalized, his parents retained counsel, who promptly retained accident reconstruction experts to inspect the vehicle and scene.
- The experts inspected and photographed the car and scene and concluded the crash forces were sufficient to trigger airbag deployment.
- General Motors (GM) received no notice of a potential claim during this early period and had no opportunity to inspect the vehicle.
- The vehicle was repaired and later sold or otherwise disposed of by the owner/insurer, leaving GM without access to the physical evidence.
- Silvestri sued GM in federal court (applying New York products liability law); on remand after an earlier appeal, GM sought spoliation sanctions based on the loss and alteration of the vehicle.
- The district court found the vehicle was the “sole piece of evidence” and dismissed the action as a sanction for spoliation.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the products liability action as a sanction for spoliation when the plaintiff failed to preserve the vehicle and failed to provide GM timely notice and an opportunity to inspect.
2. Whether dismissal was permissible where the spoliation was at least negligent and the loss of the vehicle allegedly caused severe prejudice to the defendant’s ability to defend.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit affirmed the dismissal.
- The court held that spoliation includes the destruction or material alteration of evidence, or failure to preserve property, when litigation is pending or reasonably foreseeable.
- The court concluded Silvestri had a duty, through counsel and agents, to preserve the vehicle or to provide GM notice and an inspection opportunity before repair and disposition.
- The court found GM suffered severe prejudice because it was denied meaningful access to the key physical evidence needed to evaluate defect and causation and to challenge plaintiff’s theories.
- The court held lesser sanctions would not adequately cure the prejudice because the essential physical evidence was unavailable.
- A separate opinion concurred in part and dissented in part, agreeing on duty and general doctrine but disagreeing that dismissal was warranted.

## Legal Principles

- Spoliation is the destruction or material alteration of evidence, or the failure to preserve property, for use as evidence in pending or reasonably foreseeable litigation.
- Federal courts may impose sanctions for spoliation under their inherent authority (and, where applicable, under procedural rules); dismissal is a severe sanction but can be appropriate.
- A duty to preserve evidence may arise before suit when litigation is reasonably foreseeable, and can extend to evidence held by third parties when the litigant has notice of its importance and practical ability to act (including by providing timely notice to an opponent).
- Bad faith is not a prerequisite for severe sanctions; negligent spoliation may justify dismissal when it causes extreme, incurable prejudice to the opposing party.
- The sanction must be proportionate to the culpability and prejudice; where lost evidence is indispensable to the defense, litigation-ending sanctions may be within the court’s discretion.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit held that dismissal was within the district court’s discretion because Silvestri, anticipating litigation, failed to preserve or secure inspection of the vehicle central to the claim, and the resulting loss of the only meaningful physical evidence irreparably prejudiced GM’s ability to defend.


Silvestri v. Gen. Motors Corp., 271 F.3d 583 (4th Cir. 2001)