Small Claims vs. Big Tech

[quincy]

The standard is just preponderance of the evidence, and not knowing what, if any, defense the repair facility offered that kind of testimony can be enough to win. Witness testimony is, after all, admissible evidence and if not rebutted certainly can be enough to win. I've seen cases won with just the testimony of the plaintiff making the case that basically goes "my version of events is at least slightly more likely than the defendant's". That's all it takes to win.

I still think the 0.1% chance is being generous.

 

[Taxing Matters]

Yes...anywhere up to (and including) .1%

Not knowing all the details of what would be presented by both sides and where the sympathy of the judge may lie it is impossible, IMO, to fix any particular limit on what the chance of success would be. I can say that with what we know it would not be very high, but depending on how the argument is framed it may be more than negligible.

 

[Zigner]

The standard is just preponderance of the evidence, and not knowing what, if any, defense the repair facility offered that kind of testimony can be enough to win. Witness testimony is, after all, admissible evidence and if not rebutted certainly can be enough to win. I've seen cases won with just the testimony of the plaintiff making the case that basically goes "my version of events is at least slightly more likely than the defendant's". That's all it takes to win.

Let's look at it by the numbers, and let's assume that the repair shop (manufacturer) offers zero testimony and zero other evidence:

There are three possibilities about who damaged the screen. First is the OP, but the OP will testify that he didn't damage the screen. Let's say that the judge believes the OP. So, the OP is out.

Now, there are two possibilities left. First, that the delivery company damaged it, and second that the repair shop damaged it. That means that it's 50/50 whether one or the other damaged it. The OP simply has supposition about who damaged it, so the OP cannot win.

Except, of course, if the trier of fact makes a truly bonehead call...which is possible, and allowed for in my <=.1% possibility given above.

 

[Taxing Matters]

I still think the 0.1% chance is being generous.

Well, then perhaps you've not seen a lot of litigation. In any event, I obviously disagree with you and the others who are completely discounting the chance of success.

 

[quincy]

Well, then perhaps you've not seen a lot of litigation. In any event, I obviously disagree with you and the others who are completely discounting the chance of success.

You are obviously free to disagree. I think any judge who ruled in favor of bgbylund based on bgbylund’s testimony alone would have his decision challenged by the manufacturer. And, in my opinion, rightly so.

 

[Zigner]

I have to be honest. The only reason why I may actually tend to agree with you (TM) is that it's entirely possible that the OP will find a truly boneheaded "trier of fact" (not necessarily a judge in CA small claims) who rules completely contrary to the law. That would be far from the strangest thing to have happened in California courts.

 

[Taxing Matters]

Now, there are two possibilities left. First, that the delivery company damaged it, and second that the repair shop damaged it. That means that it's 50/50 whether one or the other damaged it. The OP simply has supposition about who damaged it, so the OP cannot win.

The OP just needs to show that it was slightly more likely that the repair shop damaged it. That could come by, for one example, showing that the screen was very well packed and as such it was less likely that such a scratch would occur in shipping. Particularly if the repair facility cannot say that the package arrived in damaged condition or that the shipper attests it was not damaged in shipping.

 

[quincy]

The OP just needs to show that it was slightly more likely that the repair shop damaged it. That could come by, for one example, showing that the screen was very well packed and as such it was less likely that such a scratch would occur in shipping. Particularly if the repair facility cannot say that the package arrived in damaged condition or that the shipper attests it was not damaged in shipping.

Again, there are no photos (apparently) that show the screen at time of purchase, or prior to packing, or the packing, or its condition upon arrival at the manufacturer. Witness testimony of some sort or evidence of some sort, other than bgbylund’s testimony, would be needed to support his claim if he wants a chance of success.

Perhaps bgbylund will return to tell us more.

 

[Taxing Matters]

Witness testimony of some sort or evidence of some sort, other than bgbylund’s testimony, would be needed to support his claim if he wants a [good] chance of success.

With the slight change to your statement that I put in brackets I agree.

Perhaps bgbylund will return to tell us more.

That would certainly be helpful.

 

[quincy]

So ... leaving out the bracketed “good,” you agree that more is needed if bgbylund wants to have any chance of success.

 

[Taxing Matters]

So ... leaving out the bracketed “good,” you agree that more is needed if bgbylund wants to have any chance of success.

No, I do not agree with that. To agree with that would mean that OP has zero chance to win. There is, as I have arleady said, at least some chance he might win. It is certainly not a very good chance, but with litigation unless the case is truly frivolous (and this case would not be that) or the pleadings reveal that not all the elements of the cause of action are met there is always the chance that the plaintiff might win.

 

[quincy]

No, I do not agree with that. To agree with that would mean that OP has zero chance to win. There is, as I have arleady said, at least some chance he might win. It is certainly not a very good chance, but with litigation unless the case is truly frivolous (and this case would not be that) or the pleadings reveal that not all the elements of the cause of action are met there is always the chance that the plaintiff might win.

So ... you did not agree with my statement minus the “good” but with the addition of “good.” Okay.

 

[zddoodah]

a large scuff on the surface of the screen (not the hardware/pixel repair I asked for) that wasn't there when I shipped it in and wasn't caused by the postal carrier.

Wait a minute...if it "wasn't there when [you] shipped it," how could you possibly know that it "wasn't caused by the postal carrier"? After you parted with possession, how can you purport to know how any damage was caused?

Simple question: What are my chances of winning $800, the amount quoted for repairing the scratch

Unless you have evidence that the manufacturer caused the damage, you have zero chance of winning any amount. Also, the repair quote is not the be all and end all of the damages issue. It is likely that the actual cost to repair would be significantly less since manufacturers typically charge a premium for that sort of thing. Your damages are also limited by the fair market value of the monitor at the time of the damage. The value of a 2 1/2-year old monitor with "hardware/pixel issues" is probably closer to $100 than to $800.

I'm the second owner and don't have original proof of purchase

While this would be important for the operational problem you described, it doesn't matter for purpose of the cosmetic damage.

I do not have photos of the screen un-damaged before I sent it in for repairs

It would be better if you had such photos, but the court would likely accept your testimony that the damage did not exist at the time you placed the item with the shipping company (which testimony is likely to be uncontradicted). Your problem, as noted above, is that you likely have no ability to prove that the manufacturer, as opposed to the shipping carrier, caused the damage. You could try suing both the manufacturer and the shipping carrier, but you likely agreed to a waiver in favor of the shipper. Did you?

 

[Taxing Matters]

So ... you did not agree with my statement minus the “good” but with the addition of “good.” Okay.

Correct. That was the point of my adding the good to it in the first place. I don't think his chances are zero. They certainly aren't very good without something more than just his testimony given what's been said so far (which is something that we all seem to agree upon), but the chance of success is better than zero.

 

[Zigner]

Correct. That was the point of my adding the good to it in the first place. I don't think his chances are zero. They certainly aren't very good without something more than just his testimony given what's been said so far (which is something that we all seem to agree upon), but the chance of success is better than zero.

Yep...about .1%