illance videotape. Franchisee Christopher Davis testified that, although he had no personal knowledge of the videotape, the store manager should have mailed this item to Southland, according to corporate policy. Southland explained that it had received the tape and had ultimately forwarded it to its insurer, where it was lost. Bass-Davis’ theory of the case during trial was that the franchisees were liable for her injuries because their employees had failed to post signs to warn that the floor was wet from mopping. That theory was supported by the testimony of Bass-Davis and Aldora Lewis, a witness who was at the store when Bass-Davis fell. The franchisees’ defense was that warning signs were posted when Bass-Davis fell. Although the franchisees were not in the store when Bass-Davis fell, they testified that it was the normal practice for employees to post warning signs when they mopped the floors. Since Bass-Davis’ case was based on a failure to warn, the lost videotape was arguably relevant. The videotape showed the front door and a portion of the center aisle, and it was the store’s policy to set up a wet floor warning sign near the front door. Thus, even if the videotape would not have shown the location where Bass-Davis fell, it would have shown whether or not a warning sign was placed near the front door. During the trial, Bass-Davis proffered several jury instructions concerning evidence spoliation, including proposed Instruction C: Where relevant evidence which would properly be part of this litigation is within the control of the defendants whose interest it would naturally be to produce it, and they fail to do so without a satisfactory explanation, the jury may draw an inference that such evidence would have been unfavorable to the defendants. The district court refused to give this instruction, and the jury ultimately returned a verdict for the franchisees. After the district court entered a judgment on the jury’s verdict, Bass-Davis filed a new trial motion, contending, among other things, that the district court had abused its discretion in refusing to give the spoliation instruction and had erred in allowing collateral source evidence at trial. Specifically, during Bass-Davis’ cross-examination, the franchisees’ counsel had asked her whether she “received a paycheck” during the four-month leave of absence she took from her employment following surgery. Bass-Davis admitted that she had. Bass-Davis’ counsel objected because the question called for collateral source evidence, since Bass-Davis was seeking damages for lost wages. The district court overruled the objection. After considering Bass-Davis’ new trial motion, the district court denied it. On appeal, Bass-Davis argues that the district court abused its discretion by (1) failing to instruct the jury on loss of evidence and (2) failing to grant her motion for a new trial based on the introduction of collateral source evidence at trial. DISCUSSION Loss of evidence jury instruction Bass-Davis argues that the jury should have been instructed that potentially relevant lost evidence creates a permissible inference that the evidence was harmful to the party responsible for its production. We agree. The district court has broad discretion to settle jury instructions, and its decision to give or decline a proposed jury instruction is reviewed for an abuse of that discretion.[4] Notwithstanding this significant latitude, it is well established that “‘a party is entitled to have the jury instructed on all of h[er] case theories that are supported by the evidence.’”[5] Additionally, other courts have held that a trial court’s decision on whether to impose sanctions—including an adverse inference instruction—for the destruction or spoliation of evidence, is committed to the trial court’s discretion.[6] Thus, if the district court, in rendering its discretionary ruling on whether to give an adverse inference instruction, “has examined the relevant facts, applied a proper standard of law, and, utilizing a demonstratively rational process, reached a conclusion that a reasonable judge could reach,” affirmance is appropriate.[7] When evidence is willfully suppressed, NRS 47.250(3) creates a rebuttable presumption that the evidence would be adverse if produced. Other courts have determined that willful or intentional spoliation of evidence requires the intent to harm another party through the destruction and not simply the intent to destroy evidence.[8] We agree. Thus, before a rebuttable presumption that willfully suppressed evidence was adverse to the destroying party applies, the party seeking the presumption’s benefit has the burden of demonstrating that the evidence was destroyed with intent to harm.[9] When such evidence is produced, the presumption that the evidence was adverse applies, and the burden of proof shifts to the party who destroyed the evidence. To rebut the presumption, the destroying party must then prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the destroyed evidence was not unfavorable.[10] If not rebutted, the fact-finder then presumes that the evidence was adverse to the destroying party. Unlike a rebuttable presumption, an inference has been defined as “[a] logical and reasonable conclusion of a fact not presented by direct evidence but which, by process of logic and reason, a trier of fact may conclude exists from the established facts.”[11] Although an inference may give rise to a rebuttable presumption in appropriate cases, an inference simply allows the trier of fact to determine, based on other evidence, that a fact exists. An inference is permissible, not required, and it does not shift the burden of proof. As the rebuttable presumption in NRS 47.250(3) applies only when evidence is willfully suppressed, it should not be applied when evidence is negligently lost or destroyed, without the intent to harm another party. Instead, an inference should be permitted.[12] As recognized by the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, “[a]n intentional or willful destruction of the evidence could support a presumption unfavorable to the [destroyer]; however, the mere inability to produce the [evidence] would support an adverse inference rather than a presumption.”[13] The logic behind the adverse inference for evidence lost or destroyed through negligence was appositely explained in Turner v. Hudson Transit Lines, Inc. : [The] sanction [of an adverse inference] should be available even for the negligent destruction of documents if that is necessary to further the remedial purpose of the inference. It makes little difference to the party victimized by the destruction of evidence whether that act was done willfully or negligently. The adverse inference provides the necessary mechanism for restoring the evidentiary balance. The inference is adverse to the destroyer not because of any finding of moral culpability, but because the risk that the evidence would have been detrimental rather than favorable should fall on the party responsible for its loss.[14] Generally, in cases based on negligently lost or destroyed evidence, an adverse inference instruction is tied to a showing that the party controlling the evidence had notice that it was relevant at the time when the evidence was lost or destroyed.[15] In other words, when presented with a spoliation allegation, the threshold question should be whether the alleged spoliator was under any obligation to preserve the missing or destroyed evidence. The duty to preserve springs from a variety of sources, including ethical obligations,[16] statutes,[17] regulations,[18] and common law. Courts, including this court, that adhere to a common-law duty to preserve evidence have held that a party is required to preserve documents, tangible items, and information relevant to litigation that are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.[19] Thus, the prelitigation duty to prese

Vegas Law