{"formats":[{"name":"JSON","format":"json","url":"\/downloads\/2025\/code-json\/8.01-379.2_1.json"},{"name":"Plain Text","format":"text","url":"\/downloads\/2025\/code-text\/8.01-379.2_1.txt"},{"name":"XML","format":"xml","url":"\/downloads\/2025\/code-xml\/8.01-379.2_1.xml"},{"name":"HTML","format":"html","url":"\/downloads\/2025\/code-html\/8.01-379.2_1.html"}],"law_id":62618,"edition_id":1,"section_id":62618,"structure_id":13009,"section_number":"8.01-379.2:1","catch_line":"Spoliation of evidence","history":"2019, c. 732.","full_text":"A\n\nA party or potential litigant has a duty to preserve evidence that may be relevant to reasonably foreseeable litigation. In determining whether and at what point such a duty to preserve arose, the court shall include in its consideration the totality of the circumstances, including the extent to which the party or potential litigant was on notice that specific and identifiable litigation was likely and that the evidence would be relevant.B\n\nIf evidence that should have been preserved in the anticipation or conduct of litigation is lost because a party failed to take reasonable steps to preserve it, or is otherwise disposed of, altered, concealed, destroyed, or not preserved, and it cannot be restored or replaced through additional discovery, the court (i) upon finding prejudice to another party from such loss, disposal, alteration, concealment, or destruction of the evidence, may order measures no greater than necessary to cure the prejudice, or (ii) only upon finding that the party acted recklessly or with the intent to deprive another party of the evidence’s use in the litigation, may (a) presume that the evidence was unfavorable to the party, (b) instruct the jury that it may or shall presume that the evidence was unfavorable to the party, or (c) dismiss the action or enter a default judgment.C\n\nNothing in this section shall be interpreted as creating an independent cause of action for negligent or intentional spoliation of evidence.","order_by":null,"text":{"0":{"id":228306,"text":"A party or potential litigant has a duty to preserve evidence that may be relevant to reasonably foreseeable litigation. In determining whether and at what point such a duty to preserve arose, the court shall include in its consideration the totality of the circumstances, including the extent to which the party or potential litigant was on notice that specific and identifiable litigation was likely and that the evidence would be relevant.","type":"section","prefixes":["A"],"prefix":"A","entire_prefix":"A","prefix_anchor":"A","level":1,"next_prefix":"B"},"1":{"id":228307,"text":"If evidence that should have been preserved in the anticipation or conduct of litigation is lost because a party failed to take reasonable steps to preserve it, or is otherwise disposed of, altered, concealed, destroyed, or not preserved, and it cannot be restored or replaced through additional discovery, the court (i) upon finding prejudice to another party from such loss, disposal, alteration, concealment, or destruction of the evidence, may order measures no greater than necessary to cure the prejudice, or (ii) only upon finding that the party acted recklessly or with the intent to deprive another party of the evidence’s use in the litigation, may (a) presume that the evidence was unfavorable to the party, (b) instruct the jury that it may or shall presume that the evidence was unfavorable to the party, or (c) dismiss the action or enter a default judgment.","type":"section","prefixes":["B"],"prefix":"B","entire_prefix":"B","prefix_anchor":"B","level":1,"prior_prefix":"A","next_prefix":"C"},"2":{"id":228308,"text":"Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as creating an independent cause of action for negligent or intentional spoliation of evidence.","type":"section","prefixes":["C"],"prefix":"C","entire_prefix":"C","prefix_anchor":"C","level":1,"prior_prefix":"B"}},"ancestry":[{"id":13009,"edition_id":1,"name":"Certain Incidents of Trial","identifier":"13","label":"chapter","depth":2,"order_by":1,"parent_id":12747,"metadata":{},"date_created":"2026-06-26 03:44:08","date_modified":"2026-06-26 03:44:08","permalink":{"id":277271,"object_type":"structure","relational_id":13009,"identifier":"13","token":"8.01\/13","url":"\/8.01\/13\/","edition_id":1,"permalink":0,"preferred":1}},{"id":12747,"edition_id":1,"name":"Civil Remedies and Procedure","identifier":"8.01","label":"title","depth":1,"order_by":1,"parent_id":null,"metadata":{},"date_created":"2026-06-26 03:43:51","date_modified":"2026-06-26 03:43:51","permalink":{"id":277029,"object_type":"structure","relational_id":12747,"identifier":"8.01","token":"8.01","url":"\/8.01\/","edition_id":1,"permalink":0,"preferred":1}}],"structure_contents":[{"id":86057,"structure_id":13009,"section_number":"8.01-374","catch_line":"Procedure when original papers in cause are lost","url":"\/8.01-374\/","token":"8.01\/13\/8.01-374","metadata":false},{"id":54081,"structure_id":13009,"section_number":"8.01-374.1","catch_line":"Consolidation or bifurcation of issues or claims in certain cases; appeal","url":"\/8.01-374.1\/","token":"8.01\/13\/8.01-374.1","metadata":false},{"id":61985,"structure_id":13009,"section_number":"8.01-375","catch_line":"Exclusion of witnesses in civil cases (Subsection (a) of Supreme Court Rule 2:615 derived in part from this section and subsection (b) of Supreme Court Rule 2:615 derived from this section)","url":"\/8.01-375\/","token":"8.01\/13\/8.01-375","metadata":false},{"id":56210,"structure_id":13009,"section_number":"8.01-376","catch_line":"Views by juries","url":"\/8.01-376\/","token":"8.01\/13\/8.01-376","metadata":false},{"id":59097,"structure_id":13009,"section_number":"8.01-377","catch_line":"Remedy when variance appears between evidence and allegations","url":"\/8.01-377\/","token":"8.01\/13\/8.01-377","metadata":false},{"id":70718,"structure_id":13009,"section_number":"8.01-377.1","catch_line":"Summary judgment","url":"\/8.01-377.1\/","token":"8.01\/13\/8.01-377.1","metadata":false},{"id":79085,"structure_id":13009,"section_number":"8.01-378","catch_line":"Trial judge not to direct verdicts","url":"\/8.01-378\/","token":"8.01\/13\/8.01-378","metadata":false},{"id":55581,"structure_id":13009,"section_number":"8.01-379","catch_line":"Argument before jury","url":"\/8.01-379\/","token":"8.01\/13\/8.01-379","metadata":false},{"id":61762,"structure_id":13009,"section_number":"8.01-379.1","catch_line":"Informing jury of amounts sued for","url":"\/8.01-379.1\/","token":"8.01\/13\/8.01-379.1","metadata":false},{"id":80344,"structure_id":13009,"section_number":"8.01-379.2","catch_line":"Jury instructions","url":"\/8.01-379.2\/","token":"8.01\/13\/8.01-379.2","metadata":false},{"id":62618,"structure_id":13009,"section_number":"8.01-379.2:1","catch_line":"Spoliation of evidence","url":"\/8.01-379.2_1\/","token":"8.01\/13\/8.01-379.2_1","metadata":false},{"id":78560,"structure_id":13009,"section_number":"8.01-379.3","catch_line":"General verdict accompanied by answer to interrogatories","url":"\/8.01-379.3\/","token":"8.01\/13\/8.01-379.3","metadata":false},{"id":55779,"structure_id":13009,"section_number":"8.01-380","catch_line":"Dismissal of action by nonsuit; fees and costs","url":"\/8.01-380\/","token":"8.01\/13\/8.01-380","metadata":false},{"id":71392,"structure_id":13009,"section_number":"8.01-381","catch_line":"What jury may carry out","url":"\/8.01-381\/","token":"8.01\/13\/8.01-381","metadata":false},{"id":63842,"structure_id":13009,"section_number":"8.01-382","catch_line":"Verdict, judgment or decree to fix period at which interest begins; final order; judgment or decree for interest","url":"\/8.01-382\/","token":"8.01\/13\/8.01-382","metadata":false},{"id":56851,"structure_id":13009,"section_number":"8.01-383","catch_line":"Power to grant new trial; how often","url":"\/8.01-383\/","token":"8.01\/13\/8.01-383","metadata":false},{"id":68218,"structure_id":13009,"section_number":"8.01-383.1","catch_line":"Appeal when verdict reduced and accepted under protest; new trial for inadequate damages","url":"\/8.01-383.1\/","token":"8.01\/13\/8.01-383.1","metadata":false},{"id":83116,"structure_id":13009,"section_number":"8.01-384","catch_line":"Formal exceptions to rulings or orders of court unnecessary; motion for new trial unnecessary in certain cases","url":"\/8.01-384\/","token":"8.01\/13\/8.01-384","metadata":false},{"id":54675,"structure_id":13009,"section_number":"8.01-384.1","catch_line":"Interpreters for deaf or hard of hearing in civil proceedings","url":"\/8.01-384.1\/","token":"8.01\/13\/8.01-384.1","metadata":false},{"id":79657,"structure_id":13009,"section_number":"8.01-384.1:1","catch_line":"Interpreters for non-English-speaking persons in civil cases","url":"\/8.01-384.1_1\/","token":"8.01\/13\/8.01-384.1_1","metadata":false},{"id":75422,"structure_id":13009,"section_number":"8.01-384.2","catch_line":"Waiver of discovery time limitations by parties","url":"\/8.01-384.2\/","token":"8.01\/13\/8.01-384.2","metadata":false}],"previous_section":{"id":80344,"structure_id":13009,"section_number":"8.01-379.2","catch_line":"Jury instructions","url":"\/8.01-379.2\/","token":"8.01\/13\/8.01-379.2","metadata":false},"next_section":{"id":78560,"structure_id":13009,"section_number":"8.01-379.3","catch_line":"General verdict accompanied by answer to interrogatories","url":"\/8.01-379.3\/","token":"8.01\/13\/8.01-379.3","metadata":false},"metadata":false,"official_url":"https:\/\/law.lis.virginia.gov\/vacode\/8.01-379.2:1\/","history_text":"

This law was first created in 2019. The record of its establishment is cataloged in chapter 732<\/a> of that year\u2019s edition of \u201cActs of Assembly,\u201d the annual state publication listing all changes made to the Code of Virginia in that year.<\/p>","references":false,"refers_to":false,"permalink":{"id":277313,"object_type":"law","relational_id":62618,"identifier":"8.01-379.2:1","token":"8.01\/13\/8.01-379.2_1","url":"\/8.01-379.2_1\/","edition_id":1,"permalink":0,"preferred":1},"url":"\/8.01-379.2_1\/","token":"8.01\/13\/8.01-379.2_1","dublin_core":{"Title":"Spoliation of evidence","Type":"Text","Format":"text\/html","Identifier":"\u00a7 8.01-379.2:1","Relation":"Code of Virginia"},"html":"\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

A.<\/span> A party<\/span> or potential litigant<\/span> has a duty to preserve evidence<\/span> that may be relevant to reasonably foreseeable litigation<\/span>. In determining whether and at what point such a duty to preserve arose, the court<\/span> shall include in its consideration the totality of the circumstances, including the extent to which the party<\/span> or potential litigant<\/span> was on notice that specific and identifiable litigation<\/span> was likely and that the evidence<\/span> would be relevant. <\/i><\/a><\/p><\/section>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

B.<\/span> If evidence<\/span> that should have been preserved in the anticipation or conduct of litigation<\/span> is lost because a party<\/span> failed to take reasonable steps to preserve it, or is otherwise disposed of, altered, concealed, destroyed, or not preserved, and it cannot be restored or replaced through additional discovery<\/span>, the court<\/span> (i) upon finding<\/span> prejudice to another party<\/span> from such loss, disposal, alteration, concealment, or destruction of the evidence<\/span>, may order<\/span> measures no greater than necessary to cure the prejudice, or (ii) only upon finding<\/span> that the party<\/span> acted recklessly or with the intent<\/span> to deprive another party<\/span> of the evidence<\/span>’s use in the litigation<\/span>, may (a) presume that the evidence<\/span> was unfavorable to the party<\/span>, (b) instruct the jury<\/span> that it may or shall presume that the evidence<\/span> was unfavorable to the party<\/span>, or (c) dismiss the action<\/span> or enter a default judgment<\/span>. <\/i><\/a><\/p><\/section>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

C.<\/span> Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as creating an independent cause of action<\/span> for negligent or intentional spoliation of evidence<\/span>. <\/i><\/a><\/p><\/section>","plain_text":" CODE OF VIRGINIA\n\nSPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE (\u00a7 8.01-379.2:1)\n\nA. A party or potential litigant has a duty to preserve evidence that may be\nrelevant to reasonably foreseeable litigation. In determining whether and at\nwhat point such a duty to preserve arose, the court shall include in its\nconsideration the totality of the circumstances, including the extent to which\nthe party or potential litigant was on notice that specific and identifiable\nlitigation was likely and that the evidence would be relevant.\n\nB. If evidence that should have been preserved in the anticipation or conduct of\nlitigation is lost because a party failed to take reasonable steps to preserve\nit, or is otherwise disposed of, altered, concealed, destroyed, or not\npreserved, and it cannot be restored or replaced through additional discovery,\nthe court (i) upon finding prejudice to another party from such loss, disposal,\nalteration, concealment, or destruction of the evidence, may order measures no\ngreater than necessary to cure the prejudice, or (ii) only upon finding that the\nparty acted recklessly or with the intent to deprive another party of the\nevidence’s use in the litigation, may (a) presume that the evidence was\nunfavorable to the party, (b) instruct the jury that it may or shall presume\nthat the evidence was unfavorable to the party, or (c) dismiss the action or\nenter a default judgment.\n\nC. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as creating an independent cause\nof action for negligent or intentional spoliation of evidence.\n\nHISTORY: 2019, c. 732.","edition":{"id":1,"name":"2025","slug":"2025","date_created":"2026-06-21 22:39:22","date_modified":"2026-06-21 22:39:22","current":1,"order_by":1,"last_import":null}}