Landers v. Municipality of Anchorage
No information provided (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The proper measure of damages for lost or destroyed personal property that has no market value is its 'value to the owner,' which is determined by objective measures such as original cost or cost of replacement, but excludes any consideration for the owner's subjective sentimental or emotional attachment to the property.
Facts:
- Following an anonymous tip, Anchorage police obtained a search warrant for Steven Landers' residence, believing he was growing marijuana.
- During the search, police seized marijuana plants, cultivation equipment, and other personal property belonging to Landers, including photographs and videotapes.
- Landers alleged the seized items included personal family pictures, photos of girlfriends, wedding photographs, and videotapes he had personally recorded.
- While Landers' criminal case was pending, the Municipality of Anchorage Police Department stored his seized personal property.
- Without providing notice to Landers, the Municipality subsequently disposed of all the seized personal property, including the irreplaceable photographs and videotapes.
Procedural Posture:
- Steven Landers sued the Municipality of Anchorage in superior court for damages based on theories of inadequate bailment, trespass, and conversion.
- The Municipality filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence of Landers' sentimental or emotional attachment to the lost property.
- The superior court granted the motion in limine, finding that sentimental value was 'so highly subjective as to amount to speculation.'
- The case proceeded to a jury trial, where the court instructed the jury to measure damages by the property's fair market value and not to consider sentimental or emotional value.
- The jury awarded Landers $1.00 for the photographs and $25.00 for the videotapes.
- Because the total judgment was less than the Municipality's prior offer of judgment, the trial court ordered Landers to pay the Municipality's costs and attorney's fees.
- Landers (appellant) appealed the superior court's ruling on the motion in limine to the Alaska Supreme Court, where the Municipality of Anchorage was the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the proper measure of damages for the loss of personal property with no discernible market value, such as personal photographs and videotapes, include recovery for their sentimental or emotional value to the owner?
Opinions:
Majority - Rabinowitz, J.
No. The proper measure of damages for the loss of personal property like photographs and videotapes does not include their sentimental or emotional value. Instead, the appropriate standard is the 'value to the owner,' as articulated in the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 911. The court rejected the trial court's 'fair market value' standard as inadequate for items with no real market. It also rejected the minority view allowing for 'sentimental value,' reasoning that such a standard is too subjective and speculative. The court adopted the 'value to the owner' standard, which allows for recovery based on objective factors such as the original cost, cost of replacement, or cost to reproduce the items (e.g., the cost of film and developing). This approach provides a basis for compensation beyond mere nominal damages without venturing into difficult-to-measure emotional considerations, aligning with Alaska precedent that requires a separate claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress to recover for emotional suffering related to property loss.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the standard for calculating damages for personal property whose primary value is personal rather than commercial. By adopting the Restatement's 'value to the owner' standard, the Alaska Supreme Court establishes a middle ground between the often negligible 'fair market value' and the speculative 'sentimental value.' The ruling sets a precedent that, in the absence of an intentional tort like IIED, plaintiffs can recover the tangible costs associated with sentimental items but not for the emotional loss itself. This provides a more predictable and objective framework for courts and will guide future litigants in Alaska to frame their damages claims around demonstrable costs like replacement or reproduction rather than subjective emotional distress.
