 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
American Service Center Associates v. Helton2/3/2005
0 A.2d 621, 623 (D.C. 1960) (remanding for a new trial because the plaintiff's seemingly identical damage estimates for two purportedly separate cars suggested that the award of repair cost rested on a "spurious claim"); Brewer v. Drain, 192 A.2d 532, 534 (D.C. 1963) (holding that the evidence was sufficient to prove a causal connection between the injury and the necessity of repair, as well as the reasonableness of the cost of repair); Smith, 337 A.2d at 494 (reversing for a new trial on the issue of damages because the plaintiff did not present sufficient evidence to establish that the cost of repair "neither exceeded the diminution in value caused by the injury nor the value of the car prior to injury"); Gamble, 386 A.2d at 694 (reversing an award of repair costs that "clearly exceeded both the car's diminution in value and its total value prior to injury"). Our jurisprudence concerning the measure of damages for injury to an automobile thus has had a de facto focus on the reasonable cost of repair.
There is no dispute in this case about the proof or reasonableness of the cost of the Mercedes's repair because Avis's insurance carrier remitted payment for that purpose to the apparent satisfaction of all the parties before this action was instituted in the Small Claims and Conciliation Branch. Rather, the present controversy is whether the pre-litigation payment of the reasonable cost of repair extinguished ASCA's damages claim for residual diminution in worth as a matter of law.
Neither Knox nor any of our other decisions answers the question posed in this appeal. We do not restrictively interpret our prior decisions -- which as noted dealt with the reasonableness of the cost of repair -- as announcing an exclusive cost-of-repair standard in all cases concerning partial destruction to an automobile. In Knox, we summarized the state of the law as follows:
The basic rule for measure of damages for partial destruction of or injury to a chattel is the difference in value of the chattel immediately before and after the injury. An alternative measure is the reasonable cost of repairs necessary to restore it to its former condition. This court has on several occasions approved the use of this alternative measure. In Wright v. Capital Transit Co., . . . , 35 A.2d 183, 184, we said: "Where damages to an automobile are such that they may reasonably be repaired, restoring the vehicle to substantially its condition prior to the injury, the measure of damages is the fair and reasonable cost of the necessary repairs." We were careful to say that reasonable cost of repairs may be used as the measure of damages where the damage "may reasonably be repaired." This we did because by great weight of authority cost of repairs may not be used as the measure of damages when such cost either exceeds the diminution in market value or exceeds the value of the chattel before the injury.
In the usual case it is obvious that repairs may be reasonably made and proof of value before and after the injury is not required. But when it appears that the cost of repairs approaches and perhaps exceeds the value of the chattel prior to injury, there should be proof that the repairs may be reasonably made, i.e., that the cost thereof will neither exceed the diminution in value caused by the injury nor exceed the value prior to the injury.
Knox, 116 A.2d at 408 (some citations omitted). These rules apply with equal force today. The critical point, however, is that their scope is limited to two particular alternative measures of damages: (1) the difference in value of the chattel immediately before and after the injury, otherwise known as gross diminution in value, and (2) the cost of repairs nec
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 District of Columbia Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|