• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Dry Cleaner Liability

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mmbridges

Guest
What is the name of your state? MD

Facts:

1.) My fiancee borrowed a $1400 wedding dress from a friend to wear for our wedding. The friend had only worn thre dress once after which is was cleaned, preserved, boxed and stored for 4 years.

2.) Upond receiving the dress in the mail, my fiancee took it to be altered, had a new veil made and bought new shoes and accessories to match this dress.

3.) A couple of weeks before our wedding the dress was taken to be cleaned as the train seemed a bit grey. In addition a small fingernail sized stain on a piece of lace was noticed and pointed out to the employee who recieved the dress. My finacee considered the dress wearable in that condition and simply wanted to "freshen" it up.

4.) A week later when the dress was to be picked up a new large ~12 inch diameter yellow stain was present across the front/side of the dress.

5.) The cleaner worked 1 day to try to remove it, was unsuccessful and agreed to take it a wedding gown restoration specialist

6.) The specialist took a picture of the dress, worked on it for 1/2 day then informed us she could do nothing with it as too much had already been done.

7.) A new $380 dress was bought the next day (3 days before the wedding)and additional money was spent on alterations, a new veil, shoes and accessories to match.


I spoke with the cleaner and told him I expected the current fair market value of the ruined dress PLUS all additional out of pocket expenses incurred as a result of the damage (i.e. cost of the new dress, alterations, shoes, veil, accessories and labor costs of the restoration specialist). He refused and only offered to pay for 1/2 of the new out of pocket expenses.

QUESTIONS: Is there a reasonable theory of liability that would support my request and stand a good chance in small claims court? Are there any statutes or regulations that I could site to support my claim? Is the dry cleaner wrong in thinking he is liable ONLY for the damaged dress and NOT any subsequent incurred expenses?
 
Last edited:


JETX

Senior Member
"Is there a reasonable theory of liability that would support my request and stand a good chance in small claims court?"
*** No.

"Are there any statutes or regulations that I could site to support my claim?"
*** No.

"Is the dry cleaner wrong in thinking he is liable ONLY for the damaged dress and NOT any subsequent incurred expenses?"
*** No. In fact, consider yourself extremely lucky if the cleaner is even willing to compensate for the dress.
 
M

mmbridges

Guest
Why no compensatory damages?

Bowie,MD

"Is the dry cleaner wrong in thinking he is liable ONLY for the damaged dress and NOT any subsequent incurred expenses?"
*** No. In fact, consider yourself extremely lucky if the cleaner is even willing to compensate for the dress.

Thank you for your response.

I am sending the garment for analysis and if the report comes back showing the cleaner is at fault, why is he not required or why is it not fair for him to make my wife whole? Had the damage not occured she would not have had to buy a new dress, extra accessories, a second alteration, a second cleaning by a restoration expert. Furthermore, she would have had the original borrowed dress that was in no worse condition that when she took it to him.

So why no compensatory damages?
 
Last edited:

JETX

Senior Member
"I am sending the garment for analysis"
*** Who are you sending it to. If the 'Fabric Institute', they are an industry supported 'firm' and very favorable to their 'sponsors'. In fact, less than 11% of the reports they issue say the cleaner had some fault.

"and if the report comes back showing the cleaner is at fault, why is he not required or why is it not fair for him to make my wife whole?"
*** Because the cleaner is only required to take reasonable steps to protect the garment. That generally means that if he follows the cleaning 'tag', he is not at fault. And even if at fault, 'whole' means to the condition immediately prior to the damage.... so, what is the value of a used wedding gown with stains?? $100 maybe??

"So why no compensatory damages?"
*** Because the expenses she incurred in HER wedding are NOT recoverable by law.
 
M

mmbridges

Guest
JETX[*** Who are you sending it to. If the 'Fabric Institute', they are an industry supported 'firm' and very favorable to their 'sponsors'. In fact, less than 11% of the reports they issue say the cleaner had some fault.]

I am sending it to the IFI and yes I am aware of the 11% figure you cite.

mmbridges["and if the report comes back showing the cleaner is at fault, why is he not required or why is it not fair for him to make my wife whole?"]

JETX[*** Because the cleaner is only required to take reasonable steps to protect the garment. That generally means that if he follows the cleaning 'tag', he is not at fault. And even if at fault, 'whole' means to the condition immediately prior to the damage.... so, what is the value of a used wedding gown with stains?? $100 maybe??]

Lets set aside proof for the moment and assume the cleaner did not take reasonable steps to protect the garment and is indeed at fault. I am still confused as to your explanation of the meaning [to make] 'whole'.

My wife was the one who was injured. The nature of her injuries are:
1.) She had property in her posession damaged AND
2.) She incurred out-of-pocket expenses associated with the replacement of that damaged property.

In my mind in order to restore my wife to as close to the state she was in prior to the injury requires addressing the damaged dress AND the out-of-pocket expenses that flowed from that damage. If a similar $1400 4yr old dress can't be found the fair market value is the best remedy. IFI's fair claim guide indicates a value between $420-$210. But even if this were provided my wife is still far from her state prior to the injury given the added expenses. I must emphasize she would not have had these expenses had the injury not occured.

mmbridges["So why no compensatory damages?"]

JETX[*** Because the expenses she incurred in HER wedding are NOT recoverable by law.]

What is unique about out-of-pocket expenses incurred as a result of damaged property intended for WEDDING use, that makes them unrecoverable by law? If the damaged property was something else would resulting out-of-pocket expenses then be recoverable? If so why the difference?

For example, if I was hit by a car and it was the other drivers fault wouldn't he be on the hook for the repair costs(up to the fair market value of my car) PLUS the out-of pocket-expenses I incurred to rent a car to get to work?
 
Last edited:
M

Meursault

Guest
This reasoning stretches so far that even Gumby would snap.

You will get fair value for the gown BEFORE the dry cleaner took possession. Nothing more.

and that is IF you can prove that ordinary care was not taken with the garment. That's a big IF.
 
M

mmbridges

Guest
Meursault said:
This reasoning stretches so far that even Gumby would snap.

You will get fair value for the gown BEFORE the dry cleaner took possession. Nothing more.

and that is IF you can prove that ordinary care was not taken with the garment. That's a big IF.
I understand your and JETX's skeptism in being able to establish proof that ordinary care was not taken. But once again, leaving that aside for the moment, why is my reasoning for demanding compensatory damages, IF the cleaner was indeed at fault, such a stretch?

What is the legal standard that determines whether or not out-of-pocket expenses, incurred as the result of property damage, can be recovered?

Why is my auto accident analogy such a stretch?

car damaged ------------------- dress damaged
temporary car rental needed ---- temporary wedding dress needed


By the way do you have an opinion as to whether in my auto analogy the car rental expenses would be recoverable?
 
Last edited:

JETX

Senior Member
Let me try to clear up your confusion with a MORE accurate analogy.

You are a member of the famous 'Pickle Fanciers Society' (PFS) and they have scheduled their next monthly function at your house. In anticipation of this exciting opportunity to show off your 'pickle-knowledge', you make a trip to that fancy 'Pickle World' store that you had heard about, to 'stock up'. While there, you find that the good ones, the ones YOU want, are $25.00 a jar!! Way too much for your 'party'. So, you look around and find out that down the 'damaged' aisle, they have some really good pickles (almost as good as the ones you want) and they are only $5.00. GREAT!! But on looking at them, you see that the labels been torn, the date has expired and it looks like the seal has been 'popped'. What the hell, they won't know, so you buy the cheapie ones.

Now, lets zoom forward to the day of the big soiree. You get your 'damaged' pickles out and decide to sneak a taste.... just to make sure. YECK!! The damn jar has 'gone bad' (can pickles do that?). PANIC!!! What to do?? Your fellow PFS members will be here shortly and you have NO fancy pickles to serve them. (You have some Heinz, but that reminds you of that sleazy 'ScaryJohnKerry', yech!!!)

So, you jump into your car and head to that new (and more expensive store), Pickle Emporium!! They are even higher priced!! The same pickles that you could have gotten are $50.00 here!!! Damn, what to do?? What to do?? Left with no choice, you decide to pay the damn $50.00!!

It was worth it!! Your fellow PFS members thought your pickles were wonderful!! So much so that they elected you "HeadDill"!! What an honor!!

Now, since all that is over....
Do you really think that the "Pickle Emporium" should reimburse you the $50.00 you had to spend to replace the pickles that you chose to buy (or use) on the cheap??
Sorry, but no.

(Damn, that was too much fun!!) :D
 
M

Meursault

Guest
This entire thread is leaving a sour taste in my mouth.

I need a Peanut Butter and ONION sandwich :eek:
 
M

mmbridges

Guest
JETX said:
Let me try to clear up your confusion with a MORE accurate analogy.

[snip]
Now, since all that is over....
Do you really think that the "Pickle Emporium" should reimburse you the $50.00 you had to spend to replace the pickles that you chose to buy (or use) on the cheap??
Sorry, but no.

(Damn, that was too much fun!!) :D
No, I would not expect "Pickle Emporium" to reimburse me because I bought a perfectly acceptable product from them. You probably meant to ask "do I think Pickle World should reimburse me?"

No, I would not expect Pickle World to reimburse me because I took a risk buying "damaged pickles" and a reasonable person might expect a jar with a broken seal might not preserve the contents.


I feel your analogy is less accurate for the following reasons:

1.) My wife saw the dress before it was cleaned and was willing to wear it in its existing condition. The fingernail size stain was barely noticeable and she felt the grey train was to be expected for a used dress. When she took it to the cleaners she felt if they were able to make it look better then great but if not that was fine also. She did not expect them to make it look worse.

2.) Assuming the cleaners is at fault for not exercising reasonable care and as a result the dress came out worse (so much so it was unacceptable to wear) then the cleaner should be liable. In the pickle analogy "Pickle World" did not gurantee the "damaged pickles" would be fresh.


Is my wife wrong in expecting that by paying $110 to get a dress cleaned the work performed will be done by professionals and they will not make the condition of the dress worse (so much so that it is unwearable) than when it was brought in?

I still haven't heard an answer as to if the car rental costs in my auto accident anaology are recoverable?
 
Last edited:
M

mmbridges

Guest
JETX said:
Get an attorney. He gets paid for trying to explain legal facts to you.
Muersault said:
This entire thread is leaving a sour taste in my mouth.

I need a Peanut Butter and ONION sandwich
Thanks once again for the answers to my original questions. I'm not being cynical here and do acknowledge that JETX answered them in his very first post. I also acknowledge that I did not like the answer because it didn't seem fair hence my persistence and consequently your frustrations. I must emphasize that my persistence was merely an attempt to reconcile the single word legal answers that were provided, the facts of my case, and the description of damages provided on this website. See the following:

freeadvice->general practice->legal remedies->compensatory damages said:
WHAT TYPES OF DAMAGES ARE THERE?
Damages are divided into a number of categories upon which the recovery may be based, such as:

(1) Compensatory Damages for the purpose of making a person "whole again" (put back in the position which existed before the loss or harm). Compensatory damages is further broken into two main categories

(2) General Damages which necessarily result from the act or omission - the amount needed to restore the fair market value of the property to its owner (the injured party); and

(3) Special Damages which do not arise as a result of the wrongful act or omission itself but arise due to the circumstances after the loss or harm has occurred. Special damages include out-of-pocket items that can be documented such as the need to rent replace property (such as a car rental) or the cost of services (such as the cost to have property valued or appraised).
I was attempting to gain understanding and both Muersault and JETX were attempting to help me here with their analogies and more detailed explanations but they ulimately grew frustrated. I suspect their frustration is more from their inability to come up with concise and logical explanations/analogies that would help me, or any logical person for that matter, understand the law in this case. [an obvious bait ;) ]But JETX is right, this is a free site and I guess if I want more I need to hire an attorney for further explanation.

Is there anyone else out there with a bit more patience and skill that might want to take a stab at helping me understand why special damages like cost of a car rental due to damaged car property may be recoverable but the costs of a replacement dress to wear during a wedding due to damaged dress property are not?

If my wife found a place that would actually rent a wedding dress would the cleaner be liable for those costs?
 
Last edited:

JETX

Senior Member
Finally, SOMEONE gets it!!
As Sally Fields (almost) said (and quoted by IAAL), ""He likes me. He really likes me!"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top