Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

00-1751 World Wide Prosthetic Supply, Inc. v. Mikulsky

By: dmc-admin//March 25, 2002//

00-1751 World Wide Prosthetic Supply, Inc. v. Mikulsky

By: dmc-admin//March 25, 2002//

Listen to this article

This is so because the phrase “actual loss” in the statute encompasses lost profits resulting from defendant’s distribution of defective products incorporating plaintiff’s trade secret.

“Our interpretation of § 134.90(4)(a) does not result in unlimited consequential damages as Voyager asserts. In order to recover for actual loss under the statute, a plaintiff must prove that its loss was caused by the defendant’s violation. Section 134.90(4)(a).

“Thus, Voyager cannot be liable for any decline in World Wide’s business attributable to Voyager’s defective production of World Wide components during the period of their business relationship. Before the dissolution of the business relationship, Voyager was not in violation of § 134.90, and therefore, any loss suffered by World Wide attributable to Voyager’s conduct during that period could not have been caused by a violation of § 134.90. In order to recover damages for lost profits, World Wide will have to prove that Voyager’s manufacture and marketing of prosthetic components after the dissolution of their business relationship caused World Wide’s losses.”

The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Court of Appeals; Bradley, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Terry J. Gerbers, Green Bay

For Respondent: Winston A. Ostrow, Donald L. Romundson, Green Bay

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests