In a car collision case, the plaintiff seeks discovery of an accident report the defendant employee might have made. The defendant destroys the report and asserts the privilege against self-incrimination. Should the court allow the plaintiff to question the defendant about the destruction of the report?

• A. Yes, because destroying evidence supports an adverse inference against the party
• B. No, because privilege against self-incrimination bars the question
• C. Yes, but only if destruction was intentional
• D. No, because destruction of a report is privileged information already

Answer: (A)

When evidence is destroyed or spoiled, courts treat that act as spoliation and respond with remedies to prevent unfair prejudice. The key idea is that destroying a relevant piece of evidence creates a risk that the other side cannot fairly prove its case, so the trial court may compensate by allowing questioning about the destruction and by instructing the jury to draw an adverse inference against the party responsible for the loss.

The plaintiff should be allowed to ask the defendant about the destruction, and the court may permit or accompany that inquiry with an adverse-inference instruction that the destruction suggests the missing report would have been unfavorable to the defendant. The privilege against self-incrimination does not automatically bar questions about why the report was destroyed or about the act of destruction itself; the privilege can apply to specific answers that would incriminate, but it does not negate the potential sanction for spoliation or the permissible inference from the destruction.

So, the best answer reflects that destroying evidence supports an adverse inference against the party, making it appropriate for the court to permit questioning about the destruction.