In our last column, we began a discussion of how, in Dittman  v. The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, No. 43 WAP 2017 (PA Supreme Ct. 2018), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court used common law reasoning to determine whether the economic loss doctrine permits recovery for purely pecuniary damages which result from the breach of an independent legal duty arising under common law, as opposed to the breach of a contractual duty. In this column, we will complete our discussion of Dittman and address the pros and cons of using common law reasoning when addressing issues pertaining to digital devices and procedures.

The Supreme Court’s Reasoning

In Dittman, the Supreme Court reasoned that the appeal addressed two issues:

  • Does an employer have a legal duty to use reasonable care to safeguard sensitive personal information of its employees when the employer chooses to store such information on an internet accessible computer system?
  • Does the economic loss doctrine permit recovery for purely pecuniary damages which result from the breach of an independent legal duty arising under common law, as opposed to the breach of a contractual duty?

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]