Mieske v. Bartell Drug Co. - 92 Wash. 2d 40, 593 P.2d 1308 (1979)

Rule:

The standard of recovery for destruction of personal property is that (1) personal property which is destroyed may have a market value, in which case that market value is the measure of damages (2) if destroyed property has no market value but can be replaced or reproduced, then the measure is the cost of replacement or reproduction; (3) if the destroyed property has no market value and cannot be replaced or reproduced, then the value to the owner is to be the proper measure of damages. However, while not stated, the court has held that in the third situation infra, damages are not recoverable for the sentimental value which the owner places on the property.

Facts:

Plaintiffs took previously developed home movie film to defendants for splicing and editing. Defendants gave plaintiff a receipt that contained the language: "We assume no responsibility beyond retail cost of film unless otherwise agreed to in writing." Defendants lost the film, and plaintiffs sought damages in excess of stated limitation on liability. Judgment was awarded to plaintiffs in excess of the market value of the film, and defendants appealed.

Issue:

1. Was the market value of the replacement a proper remedy under the circumstances? 
2. Was the exclusionary clause found in the receipt enforceable? 

Answer:

1) No. 2) No.

Conclusion:

The court held that the market value of the replacement was not a proper remedy because plaintiffs lost the film with pictures, and market value replacement would give them only the cost of the film. The proper standard of recovery for destruction of personal property having no market value and incapable of replacement was the intrinsic value of the property. The court also held Wash. Rev. Stat. § 62A.2-102 applied to bailment transactions. Anent the second issue, the court held that the application of the Uniform Commercial Code required the court, as a matter of law, to determine whether the exclusionary clause was unconscionable. The court agreed that the clause on receipt was unconscionable and invalid.