Legal
Based on the letters received Mr. Fontz, Mr. Gunter intends to sue Acme Electronics for
negligence in regards to their handling of his hard drive. In order to prove that a tort was
committed, in this case, negligence in which a level of responsibility on the part of Acme
Electronics that was not met. In a negligence case, negligence must not only be proven but
there must a causational relationship between the negligence and the damage caused (Thel
Haft v. The Lone Pine Hotel) . Along with this contributory negligence, for being partially
responsible for damages, must be considered. Furthermore, Mr. Gunter stated that he wanted
punitive damages, in which the level of negligence was either malicious or so unreasonable that
punishment for the negligence will likely deter others from doing the same thing. Monetary
reimbursements are the most likely remedy.
Negligence
To recover damages for negligence, the plaintiff must prove;
1. A breach of duty
2. Actual injuries suffered
3. Actual and proximate causation between the breach and the injury
On the first point Mr. Gunter would assert that a breach of duty had occurred by which
he had asked for his old hard drive back and was given someone else’s hard drive. This is a
violation of statute §8984.10 that requires, when asked, to return a replaced part once the
work has been finished. He would state that because of this mix up he was not given his hard
drive back and lost the possibility to recover his lost data. Along with this he would argue that a
reasonable person would not have mixed up the hard drives due to the known and foreseen
risks of damages that could occur due to this action.
Acme electronics would not dispute that the hard drive he was given was not his old one
but they would argue that they have no responsibility for Mr. Gunter’s actions after he received
the hard drive back. Along with this they would argue that had he backed up his hard drive
there would have been no issues regarding the returned part. They would further assert that a
reasonable person would do their best to not have such instances occur but in the course of
business mistakes are made but are not frequent enough to constitute a breach of duty.
Next, in order for Mr. Gunter to prove that there was in fact actual injuries suffered he
would point out that the injuries do not need to be personal but can be purely financial. With
this he would show that his damages included the $800 in order to recover the data on a hard
drive that was not his, along with cost of reconstructing the lost materials of $5000 that were
lost due to the misplacement.
Acme Electronics would state that anything Mr. Gunter did with the hard drive after he
received it was not their responsibility and that they could not be held responsible for data on
the hard drive or the cost to recover the data.
Lastly, Mr. Gunter would argue that there was in fact a causal relationship between him
not receiving his hard drive back and the damages he incurred. He would state had he received
the correct hard drive he would have been able to find out how much of the data could be
recovered if any, instead of spending the $800 on Mr. Gottmilk’s hard drive. Also, he would
state the value of the data, if he had been able to recover the information, would be valued at
the cost to reconstruct the data which would be $5000.
In order to argue this point Acme electronics would continue the argument that they
could not be held responsible for the cost of recovering data after the hard drive had been
returned. Furthermore, they would continue to argue that they could not be held liable for the
data on the hard drive, regardless of if the data could be recovered or not.
Damages
If the case goes to court and Acme electronics loses there are a number of damages that
can be awarded. The monetary awards that could be awarded are; compensatory damages for
the loss in value of performance the plaintiff had the right to expect, which do have limits, and
punitive damages. Otherwise, if they win the case there will not be any damages.
In order to figure out what compensatory damages Acme Electronics may be liable for
we must look at;
A. Loss in Value
B. Consequential Damages
C. Incidental Damages
The loss of value Mr. Gunter would claim would not be able to claim a loss in value
because he was given the services he requested and did not have to go somewhere else to
finish the transaction. He would state that the misplacement of his hard drive was an indirect
cause of his loss for the recovery fee of $800 because giving Acme gave his hard drive to Mr.
Gottmilk who threw it away, which is also an indirect cause for the loss of data thereby forcing
him to reconstruct the data. In order for him to claim incidental damages he would have had to
recover his original hard drive back, so he could seek another $800 for a data recovery attempt
to that hard drive, which he was unable to do.
Limitations
A party is limited to the damages they can recover if;
A. Losses which are purely speculative.
B. Only losses which were foreseeable at the time of contracting
C. Plaintiffs have a duty to mitigate damages
In this case we believe that the data value of $5000 is somewhat speculative but that it is not
purely speculative and an itemized account of how he came to that value would be requested.
We believe that the loss of the data recovery would have been foreseeable in a computer
business such as Acme Electronics, including the fact Mr. Gunter was given the number for the
data recovery by an Acme Electronics employee. Also, Mr. Gunter did try to mitigate his
damage by seeking out his original hard drive but it was no longer in Mr. Gottmilk’s possession,
because he had thrown it away and he would argue that he was mitigating his damages by
reconstructing the data at a cost of $5,000 instead of waiting for a settlement in which the
further losses may occur due to the lack of that data.
In the examination of punitive damages, there is a lack of evidence to support that there
was any malicious or intentional misplacement of Mr. Gunter’s hard drive and that the errors
occurred during the normal course of business in which for a two week period their system was
overwhelmed and unable to keep track of all the parts coming in and out. Along with this,
though Acme did not agree with Mr. Gunter’s requests in his letters there were no elements of
mistreatment or malice. It would be very unlikely that punitive damages would be awarded if
Acme electronics were to lose the case.
Defenses
Acme Electronics defense would consist of two arguments, contributory negligence and
assumption of risk. Under the current doctrine of contributory negligence Acme would argue
that Mr. Gunter was at least 1% responsible for the decision to seek the data recovery and that
he was at least 1% responsible for not backing up his hard drive. Along with this Acme may
claim that at least 1% would be attributed to Mr. Gottmilk because he disposed of the hard
drive thereby awarding Mr. Gunter nothing. If they wait and the comparative negligence
doctrine is either adopted or adopted and retroactively applied, Acme would further argue, in
the case of mixed comparative negligence, that due to not backing up the information and Mr.
Gottmilks contribution that they would be less than 50% responsible for the damages so he
would also receive nothing. Under purely comparative negligence they would assert that these
issues would put Acme at a very low percentage of fault and that the damages would be
extremely reduced (Ben Dover v. Checker Taxi Company of Grace). In the issue of risk of
assumption Acme would argue that Mr. Gunter assumed the risk of attempting to recover the
data knowing he may not have gotten anything in return and that upon purchase of the hard
drive he assumed the risk of it malfunctioning and because he decided not to back it up lost his
data, therefore he would not be eligible for damages.
Statistical Analysis
Recommendations
Based on our research we recommend that Acme settles out of court for the amount of
15,800. The main reason being that the negative publicity from taking this case to court, even if
they won, may damage the name and reputation of Acme electronics much more significantly
than what Mr. Gunter is asking for. Along with this we recommend admitting to the mistake
and using the compensation package to make Mr. Gunter feel as though the matter was
adequately resolved. Furthermore, we recommend making changes in procedures when dealing
with equipment. In which a simple bar code system or Id tag is placed on the items quickly and
efficiently enough so if there is a future occurrence like they experienced there will not be any
misplacement of peoples parts. We also would recommend that funds be set aside in case of
further complaints about misplaced property and damages associated with it, for that two
week time frame, giving them a fair amount of compensation and an explanation of changes
being made so that there are not future occurrences.