## Facts

- The Mieskes accumulated 32 reels of developed 8mm home-movie film depicting family events over many years, including irreplaceable images of deceased relatives.
- They brought the already-developed reels to Bartell’s camera department to have the film spliced onto four larger reels.
- Bartell’s manager accepted the films and issued a receipt stating: “We assume no responsibility beyond retail cost of film unless otherwise agreed to in writing.”
- The clause was not discussed or negotiated; Mrs. Mieske warned the manager not to lose the films because they were extremely important to her.
- Bartell sent the films through a processing chain involving GAF and another lab; the Mieskes did not know intermediaries would handle the films.
- The films were lost or destroyed and were never recovered.
- Defendants admitted negligence but disputed damages and asserted the receipt clause limited liability.
- A jury awarded the Mieskes $7,500; defendants appealed.

## Issues

1. What is the proper measure of damages for loss of irreplaceable personal property with no market value and no meaningful replacement or reproduction cost (developed home-movie films)?
2. Whether a receipt clause limiting responsibility to the retail cost of film is enforceable to cap damages, including under UCC concepts of trade usage and unconscionability.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the $7,500 judgment.
- The court held the jury was properly instructed to award damages based on the films’ intrinsic value to the owners, within reasonable bounds.
- The court declined to enforce the receipt’s limitation-of-liability clause because defendants did not establish a binding trade usage known (or chargeable) to the customers and the clause was not shown to be a valid term under the circumstances.

## Legal Principles

- Damages for destroyed personal effects are measured by: (1) market value if any; (2) replacement/reproduction cost if no market value but replaceable; or (3) intrinsic value to the owner if no market value and not replaceable or reproducible.
- Intrinsic value may include ordinary sentimental value, but may not reflect an unwarranted indulgence in feeling or a fanciful price fixed by the owner.
- Difficulty in quantifying loss does not bar recovery when intrinsic value is the appropriate measure.
- In a service-related bailment context, UCC Article 2 principles may apply to assess limitation clauses.
- A party relying on trade usage to incorporate an exclusionary limitation must prove a uniform trade practice and that the customer knew or should have known of it.
- Whether a limitation of consequential damages is unconscionable is a question of law for the trial court, evaluated using factors such as conspicuousness, prior dealings, negotiation, commercial setting, and trade custom.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a jury award based on the intrinsic value of lost, irreplaceable home movies and refused to enforce an unnegotiated, inconspicuous receipt clause that would have limited recovery to the nominal retail cost of film.


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