## Facts

- A 28-foot Bayliner cabin cruiser exploded and burned while docked in Pasadena, Maryland, after Donald Vodusek fueled the boat by siphoning gasoline from cans into the fuel system; about thirty minutes later, after he turned on the bilge pump, an explosion occurred.
- Donald Vodusek suffered severe burns and died three months later from burn-related complications.
- The boat was manufactured in 1978 by Bayliner Marine Corporation; Stammer’s Marine Center, Inc. was the dealer that sold and serviced the boat, including a prior warranty repair noting a kinked gas tank hose and rerouting.
- Donald later purchased the boat used from Stammer’s Marine; his widow, Shirley Vodusek, sued Bayliner (diversity) and Stammer’s (designated admiralty under Rule 9(h)) for negligence and products-liability theories tied to alleged fuel leakage and ignition by an electrical spark.
- During the post-accident investigation, plaintiff’s experts cut into and removed components from the boat; defendants claimed these actions altered or destroyed key physical evidence and impaired their ability to inspect the vessel’s post-accident condition.
- The district court tried all claims to a jury, permitted an adverse inference instruction based on spoliation, and also issued separate admiralty findings for defendants.

## Issues

1. Whether a jury may decide all issues in a single trial when the case includes both admiralty claims and claims independently entitled to a jury trial (here, diversity claims).
2. Whether a district court may permit a jury to draw an adverse inference from a party’s spoliation of relevant evidence without an explicit finding of subjective bad faith.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit affirmed the defense verdict.
- The court held that, when there is an independent basis for a jury trial on joined, factually related non-admiralty claims, a single jury may decide all issues, including issues arising on the admiralty-designated claim.
- The court held that a permissive adverse inference instruction for spoliation may be given when evidence is intentionally altered or destroyed, even without a separate finding that the actor’s purpose was to suppress unfavorable proof.
- The court concluded that the district court’s separate admiralty findings did not warrant reversal because the jury’s verdict controlled and the parallel bench findings caused no prejudice.

## Legal Principles

- When admiralty and non-admiralty claims arise from the same operative facts and at least one claim carries an independent right to a jury trial (such as diversity jurisdiction), the district court may submit all issues to one jury.
- A trial court may allow a jury to draw an adverse inference from spoliation where relevant evidence is purposefully destroyed or altered and the opposing party is prejudiced in its ability to examine the evidence.
- For a permissive adverse inference instruction, an express finding of subjective bad faith (a specific intent to hide unfavorable evidence) is not required; intentional alteration or destruction is sufficient.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit upheld a unified jury trial for intertwined diversity and admiralty claims and approved a spoliation-based adverse inference instruction where the plaintiff’s investigation intentionally altered key physical evidence, affirming judgment for the defendants.


Vodusek v. Bayliner Marine Corp., 71 F.3d 148 (4th Cir. 1995)