Galindez v. Rhode Island Public Transit Authority, No. 2024-219-Appeal. (R.I. July 30, 2026), full opinion (PDF)
An adverse-inference instruction is worth only what the record behind it is worth. Video from a camera on a public bus was taped over before trial, and the plaintiff won a comprehensive spoliation instruction because of the loss. The jury returned a verdict for the transit authority anyway, less than an hour after the trial justice answered its question about what the doctrine meant.
The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed, reviewing the original charge and the supplemental one de novo. It found no error in either.
What Happened
Galindez sued the Rhode Island Public Transit Authority, alleging that she was injured on a bus when the driver braked abruptly. A camera on the bus had recorded the events at issue. By trial the video was gone.
During the discussion of proposed instructions, the trial justice said she “did not believe that [Galindez] had done enough to develop [the spoliation] argument”. A single trial exhibit supplied the basis anyway. A letter from a RIPTA attorney suggested that video of the incident had been taped over, and on that basis she gave a spoliation instruction.
The Court’s Analysis
The charge told the jury that destruction of evidence may give rise to an inference that the destroyed evidence was unfavorable to the party who destroyed it. The charge then limited that inference: “But that is not conclusive. It is the sole province of you, the jury, to decide whether or not to make an adverse inference.”
On fault, the instruction placed spoliation on a continuum running from innocence through degrees of negligence to intentionality. It told the jury that “A showing of bad faith is not necessary to permit a spoliation inference, but such a showing will strengthen the inference.” The operative conditions were narrower than that framing suggests. Before drawing the inference, the jury had to find that the bus recorded video of the incident, that RIPTA destroyed it, and that RIPTA did so intentionally. The charge then loosened the intent requirement it had just imposed, letting jurors weigh whether carelessness or negligence was “so gross to amount to a deliberate act of spoliation.”
Galindez argued on appeal that a spoliation instruction was warranted. The Court noted that she did not acknowledge the comprehensive instruction the trial justice had in fact delivered. Reviewing the charge de novo, it held that the instruction “more than sufficiently covered the law of spoliation.”
The jury’s own question is the most useful part of the opinion. During deliberations the jurors sent a note asking: “Your Honor, if we find that the bus driver was not negligent, but find that RIPTA was deficient in not keeping a copy of the video of this incident, is that evidence of fault?” Over Galindez’s objection, the trial justice answered that a finding of deficiency permitted the jury to infer that the video supported the plaintiff’s testimony, but never required it.
The Court held that the trial justice “merely restated the law” and in no way altered the meaning of the prior instruction. It drew significance from the timing as well, treating a verdict returned less than an hour later as evidence that the jurors’ confusion had been dispelled. The Court resolved Galindez’s remaining assignments of error against her and affirmed.
Why It Matters
A permissive inference is worth whatever the surrounding record makes it worth. This jury was told it could infer that the missing video would have been unfavorable to the transit authority, and it returned a defense verdict all the same.
Develop the spoliation theory as a theory, not as an instruction request. The trial justice said on the record that the argument had not been developed, then gave the instruction anyway on the strength of a single exhibit. Testimony about the retention interval, who controlled the footage, and what the defendant did after notice can convert a permissive inference into a finding.
Expect jurors to be confused about what spoliation does. The note asked whether a failure to keep the video was itself evidence of fault, which confuses negligence in the underlying conduct with negligence in preserving the evidence. Write proposed instructions in the jury’s vocabulary. In closing, tie the missing evidence to the specific factual dispute it would have resolved.
Vehicle and facility video is among the first ESI to disappear. A preservation letter naming the vehicle, the camera, the date, and the time window, sent within days of the incident, is the most reliable protection available.
The full opinion is available as a PDF.
