White v. Arthur Enterprises, Inc., A95A1584
Decision Date | 08 November 1995 |
Docket Number | No. A95A1584,A95A1584 |
Citation | 219 Ga.App. 124,464 S.E.2d 225 |
Parties | WHITE et al. v. ARTHUR ENTERPRISES, INC. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Little & Adams, Robert B. Adams, Dalton, for appellants.
Minor, Bell & Neal, William F. Jourdain, Robert G. McCurry, Dalton, for appellee.
Arthur Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a S & W Pharmacy filed a complaint alleging that John White, White's Pharmacy and Cost Effective Computers, Inc., violated the Georgia Trade Secrets Act by misappropriating S & W's computer files containing customer, drug, doctor and prescription information. The parties tried the case before a jury, which found White and White's Pharmacy each separately liable to S & W in the amount of $18,000 for wilful and malicious misappropriation of trade secrets, but found Cost Effective not liable. The court awarded S & W attorney fees of $17,474. See OCGA § 10-1-764. White and White's Pharmacy appeal.
1. The claim of White and White's Pharmacy that no evidence supports the amount of damages awarded by the jury is without merit. Under the Trade Secrets Act, damages can include the unjust enrichment caused by misappropriation of trade secrets. OCGA § 10-1-763(a). The unjust enrichment doctrine provides that a party shall not be allowed to profit or enrich itself inequitably at another's expense. Black's Law Dictionary 4th Ed.Rev. The unjustly enriched party should pay for its gain. Mabry v. Pelton, 208 Ga.App. 891, 893(3), 432 S.E.2d 588 (1993). Phoenix Airline Svcs. v. Metro Airlines, 194 Ga.App. 120, 125-126(3), 390 S.E.2d 219 (1989), rev'd on other grounds, 260 Ga. 584, 397 S.E.2d 699 (1990). In the instant case, S & W, which sought damages based on unjust enrichment, presented evidence that the information contained in its computer files had a value of $90,000. Relying on this evidence, the jury could have determined with reasonable certainty that White and White's Pharmacy each realized a gain of $18,000 from the misappropriation of those files. Because the jury's award of damages was well within the range of the evidence, it shall be affirmed. See Fullard v. Southern Mut. Ins. Co., 191 Ga.App. 483, 485(3), 382 S.E.2d 140 (1989).
2. White and White's Pharmacy maintain that the amount of attorney fees awarded by the court is excessive and unsupported by the evidence. White and White's Pharmacy, however, have not met their appellate burden of proving error by the record. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Stoker v. Bellemeade, LLC
...the unjust enrichment doctrine, a party is not allowed to enrich itself inequitably at another's expense. White v. Arthur Enterprises, Inc., 219 Ga.App. 124, 464 S.E.2d 225 (1995). The Stokers claim Casa Cajco and others induced them to jointly develop the residential parcels by the oral pr......
-
Watson v. Sierra Contracting Corp.
...which is analogous to quantum meruit in that the duty to pay arises out of the receipt of a benefit. See White v. Arthur Enterprises, 219 Ga.App. 124, 464 S.E.2d 225 (1995); Mabry v. Pelton, 208 Ga.App. 891, 432 S.E.2d 588 (1993); Regional Pacesetters v. Halpern Enterprises, 165 Ga.App. 777......
-
Progressive Elec. Servs., Inc. v. Task Force Constr., Inc.
...record, Progressive and Bush have not met their burden of showing error affirmatively by the record. White v. Arthur Enterprises, Inc., 219 Ga.App. 124, 125(2), 464 S.E.2d 225 (1995). See also In re Estate of Dorroh, 255 Ga.App. 366, 367, 565 S.E.2d 565 (2002). In the absence of all the evi......
-
Jordan v. Johnson
...specially). This does not relieve an appellant from the obligation to demonstrate error by the record. See White v. Arthur Enterprises, 219 Ga.App. 124, 125(2), 464 S.E.2d 225 (1995); Johnson v. Bruno's, Inc., 219 Ga.App. 164, 167(4), 464 S.E.2d 259 (1995). One who complains that the opposi......