Low, Ball & Lynch’s

WEEKLY LAW RESUME

September 21, 2006  Issue  By: Ray Coates

 

Damages - Proper Measure of Loss of Use

 

Metz v. Soares

(September 13, 2006)

 

Court of Appeal, Third District

 

Generally, the measure of damages for loss of use of personal property is the reasonable rental value of the property for the period in which a plaintiff was wrongfully deprived of its use. This case addresses whether this rule applies in situations where the owner was not using the property prior to the loss.

 

Plaintiff John Metz collected classic cars, including a 1971 Jaguar XKE. In 1998, Metz brought the Jaguar in for repairs to Defendant Louie Soares, dba Olympic Tune Up. The vehicle stayed in Soares’ possession for four years. During that time, the car was exposed to the elements, ruining the engine and rendering the car a total loss. Metz accepted a settlement check from Soares’ insurer for approximately $25,000. This check was to compensate Metz for destruction of the Jaguar.

 

Thereafter, Metz believed this amount to be inadequate. Metz sued Soares alleging damages for loss of use. Specifically, he claimed loss of use at a reasonable value of $300 per day. The case proceeded to trial. A jury found Metz had no loss of use damages. Metz appealed. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed.

 

On appeal, Metz contended that the trial court erred in instructing the jury:  “To recover damages for loss of use, plaintiff must prove the number of days of lost use until the time plaintiff was paid the replacement value.”  Metz argued he was entitled to the reasonable daily rental value of the car, regardless of whether he had used it or not. The Court of Appeal disagreed.

 

The evidence at trial had been that Metz had owned the car since 1977. In 1993, he acknowledged that he took the car “out of service,” and only drove it occasionally. At the time that Metz brought it to Soares’ shop in 1998,  it did not run. While the car was in the shop, it was registered with the D.M.V. as “non-operational.”  The Third District ruled that if Metz had not been using the car for a long period of time,  then he could not establish that Soares’ conduct proximately caused loss of use. The Court held that Metz could not recover because he had a right to use the car. Rather, Metz needed to establish that he needed the car, and was prevented from using it by the defendant.  Here, Metz did not prove he sustained an actual loss of use. Therefore, the Court of Appeal ruled that the trial court correctly instructed the jury, and the judgment was consistent with the evidence.

 

COMMENT

 

This case establishes that a Plaintiff cannot collect damages for loss of use when the property had not been used for some time. It is, therefore, important to discover how much the property was used prior to loss.

____

To order a printed version of this analysis, or change your subscription information, reply to this transmission Information regarding this and other WEEKLY LAW RESUME TM articles is available from Raymond Coates at (650) 366-4000, [email protected] or at WWW.LOWBALL.COM. The WEEKLY LAW RESUME TM is published fifty-two times a year, and is a complimentary publication of LOW, BALL & LYNCH, Attorneys at Law, a Professional Corporation, with offices in San Francisco, Redwood City and Monterey, California.