as “bad faith” or “willful” spoliation, we mean that the party acted with the subjective purpose of concealing or destroying discoverable evidence. This includes the concept of “willful blindness,” court “must analyze the available sanctions and offer a reasoned explanation as to the appropriateness of the sanction imposed”). 2. Caveat Authorizing Instruction in Context of Negligent Spoliation Our conclusion regarding the requisite state of mind to justify a jury instruction, however, must include a narrow caveat. On rare occasions, a situation may arise in which a party’s negligent breach of its duty to reasonably preserve evidence irreparably prevents the nonspoliating party from having any meaningful opportunity to present a claim or defense. See Wal-Mart Stores, 106 S.W.3d at 721 (<HOLDING>). In such circumstances, the destruction or
recognizing that the loss or destruction of evidence may seriously impair a partys ability to present its case holding that the trial court failed to exercise its discretion by stating that it did not have the ability to present the transcript to the jury holding that plaintiff must present such evidence recognizing spoliation as an independent cause of action for negligence where a party is unable to prove its case due to the loss or destruction of key evidence holding that cause of action for injury to corporations property or for impairment or destruction of its business is vested in corporation as distinguished from its shareholders