ST. LOUIS — In a ruling that reaffirms Missouri’s longstanding legal precedent, the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District has upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by a St. Louis-area family seeking damages for the alleged destruction of key video evidence in a prior legal case.
The court sided with KMS-KFC LLC and KFC Corporation Inc.—the franchisee and franchisor, respectively, of a Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant—against claims brought by William and Jennifer Sandbach and their daughter.
The Sandbachs originally sued the KFC entities after a confrontation with restaurant employees.
The family claimed that, after entering the restaurant near closing time, they were met with hostility from employees who allegedly insisted they take their food to go.
The dispute escalated when, according to the Sandbachs, the employees used a racial slur, calling them “white trash.”
As the family left the restaurant, they alleged that employees, including the manager, followed them into the parking lot, hurled further racial insults, and made violent threats, including references to a potential drive-by shooting.
Central to the case was a security video that captured the incident.
The Sandbachs claimed that the defendants later destroyed the footage. In their original lawsuit in St. Louis County Circuit Court, the family brought multiple tort claims, including assault, negligent hiring, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
All but one claim—negligent hiring—were dismissed through summary judgment.
The court found that the employees’ alleged actions were so outrageous and unforeseeable that they fell outside the scope of their employment, shielding the employers from liability under the legal doctrine of respondeat superior.
After the summary judgment, the Sandbachs filed a motion alleging spoliation of evidence, which the circuit court partially granted.
The court found that grounds for spoliation existed concerning the destruction of the security video and ordered an evidentiary remedy to be considered during the trial on the remaining negligent hiring count.
However, one day after filing that motion, the Sandbachs launched a separate lawsuit specifically targeting the destruction of the video.
In that case, they accused KMS-KFC and KFC Corporation of prima facie tort, negligence, intentional and reckless destruction of evidence, and conspiracy. They sought monetary and punitive damages, along with attorney fees.
The defendants moved to dismiss this new lawsuit, arguing that Missouri law does not recognize an independent tort claim for spoliation of evidence.
The circuit court agreed and dismissed the case. The Sandbachs appealed, contending that Missouri does allow such claims or should do so based on their reading of past court decisions.
The Missouri Court of Appeals ruled against the Sandbachs, stating unequivocally that Missouri has consistently refused to recognize spoliation as an independent cause of action.
The court cited multiple precedents, including Marmaduke v. CBL & Assocs. Mgmt., Inc. and Fisher v. Bauer Corp., which establish that the appropriate remedy for spoliation is an adverse evidentiary inference—not a separate lawsuit.
The court also rejected the Sandbachs’ interpretation of the Fisher decision, clarifying that while the case outlined what a spoliation tort might look like, it explicitly declined to recognize such a claim. The appellate judges further noted that only a minority of U.S. states recognize independent spoliation torts and that many—including California and Florida—have reversed course after briefly allowing them.
In upholding the dismissal, the court emphasized the importance of judicial finality and avoiding duplicative litigation. Recognizing a new cause of action for spoliation, the court said, would open the door to a cascade of secondary lawsuits challenging prior rulings and undermining the finality of judicial decisions.
The court also denied the respondents’ request for damages under Rule 84.19, which allows for sanctions in the event of a frivolous appeal. Despite ultimately siding with the defendants, the court found the appeal raised a valid legal question that was not moot and thus did not warrant penalties.
The Sandbachs’ claim for negligent hiring remains pending in the underlying case.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District case number: ED112808