Tortsemployer dutyreasonable caresensitive personal informationinternet accessible computer systemeconomic loss doctrineindependent legal dutycommon law
Facts
The order identifies a dispute involving an employer's storage of employees' sensitive personal information on an internet-accessible computer system. The petitioners framed the case as asking whether the employer had a duty to use reasonable care to safeguard that information. The petitioners also framed the case as involving a claim for purely pecuniary damages arising from an alleged breach of an independent common-law duty. No additional facts are stated in the provided majority text.
Issue
Whether an employer has a legal duty to use reasonable care to safeguard sensitive personal information of its employees when it chooses to store that information on an internet-accessible computer system. Whether the economic loss doctrine permits recovery for purely pecuniary damages resulting from the breach of an independent legal duty arising under common law rather than from the breach of a contractual duty.
Rule
The provided text does not state a substantive rule. It only grants allowance of appeal on questions concerning whether a common-law duty of reasonable care exists and whether the economic loss doctrine permits recovery for purely economic losses caused by breach of an independent common-law duty.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In Pittsburgh, Lena Ortiz sues her employer, North Shore Imaging, after a cyberattack exposed payroll records stored on an internet-accessible server. In opposing dismissal, Lena cites a state supreme court order that granted allowance of appeal on whether employers owe a duty of reasonable care to safeguard employees' sensitive personal information and on whether the economic loss doctrine permits recovery for purely pecuniary losses caused by breach of an independent common-law duty.
What is the strongest response to Lena's reliance on that order?
Explanation. The majority text provided is only an order granting allowance of appeal. It states the issues as framed by the petitioners but does not resolve them, announce a substantive rule, or provide merits reasoning. Therefore, it cannot be cited as having definitively recognized an employer duty or as having held that the economic loss doctrine permits recovery for purely pecuniary damages.