## Facts

- Bridge Tower Dental, P.A. hired Meridian Computer Center, Inc. in 2003 to design and install a computer system, including a server with two mirrored hard drives.
- In June 2005, the server malfunctioned; Bridge Tower’s consultant delivered the server and both drives to Meridian for warranty repair, creating an agreed bailment.
- During repair, Meridian’s technician misconnected source and destination on the motherboard and erased the contents of the working drive, destroying Bridge Tower’s patient and business data while the equipment was in Meridian’s custody.
- Bridge Tower had no independent backup; the evidence conflicted on whether the consultant instructed Meridian to back up data.
- The service/warranty documentation assigned the consultant responsibility for ensuring that backups were successfully completed.
- Bridge Tower sued Meridian for breach of contract and negligence under a bailment theory.
- The trial court combined the contract and negligent-bailment theories in the final jury instructions and submitted a general verdict form; the jury returned a general verdict for Meridian.
- The trial court denied Bridge Tower’s motions for JNOV or a new trial and awarded Meridian attorney’s fees and costs as the prevailing party.

## Issues

1. Whether Meridian rebutted the bailment-based presumption of negligence so that the defense verdict could stand, or whether Bridge Tower was entitled to JNOV on negligent bailment.
2. Whether combining breach-of-contract and negligent-bailment theories in the jury instructions, coupled with a general verdict, required a new trial.
3. Whether Meridian could retain attorney’s fees and costs as the prevailing party after reversal.

## Decision

- The Idaho Supreme Court reversed the denial of Bridge Tower’s post-trial motion and vacated the attorney’s fees and costs award to Meridian.
- The court held that a bailment presumption of negligence applied because Bridge Tower delivered the property with intact data and it was returned with the data destroyed during Meridian’s custody.
- Meridian’s evidence that Bridge Tower (through its consultant) bore responsibility for backups did not negate Meridian’s negligent act of erasing the data; it addressed comparative fault or damages, not due care in handling the bailed property.
- The trial court erred by merging contract and negligent-bailment instructions, which obscured the distinct bailment elements and burden-shifting framework and risked a verdict under an incorrect legal standard.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion, including reassessment of prevailing-party status and fees.

## Legal Principles

- In a bailment, once the bailor shows delivery of property to the bailee and failure to return it in the same condition, a presumption of the bailee’s negligence arises, shifting to the bailee the burden of producing evidence that the loss was not caused by its negligence.
- Contractual allocation of backup responsibility (and evidence of customary customer backup practices) does not, by itself, rebut a bailee’s presumed negligence for directly causing destruction of the bailed property while in its possession.
- Distinct theories (breach of contract vs. negligent bailment) require separate, accurate jury instructions when their elements and evidentiary/burden frameworks differ; combining them can constitute reversible instructional error, especially with a general verdict.
- Attorney’s fees and costs awards premised on prevailing-party status must be vacated when the underlying judgment establishing that status is reversed.

## Conclusion

The Idaho Supreme Court set aside a defense verdict and fee award after concluding that Meridian, as bailee, failed to rebut the presumption of negligence arising from its technician’s data-erasing mistake, and that conflated jury instructions improperly prevented the jury from applying the correct negligent-bailment framework.


Bridge Tower Dental, P.A. v. Meridian Comput. Ctr., Inc., 272 P.3d 541 (Idaho 2012)