Tort; remedies; compensatory damages for harm to property; decrease in market value.
Facts: The plaintiff owned a 1976 Toyota car. The defendant negligently damaged the car in an accident. The cost of repairs was $4,271, a sum approved by an assessor on behalf of an insurance company. The trial judge decided that, although the plaintiff had proved the reasonable repair costs, no loss had been established. The judge said that, to establish a loss, the plaintiff must prove that the value of the car immediately before it was damaged was greater than the amount required to repair it. The plaintiff appealed.
Issue: Was the plaintiff entitled to simply prove the reasonable cost of repair to the damaged car and, in the absence of any further evidence, claim that figure? Or must the plaintiff prove that the value of the car immediately before it was damaged was greater than the amount required to repair it?
Decision: The trial judge decided that, because the plaintiff had only proved the reasonable repair costs, no loss had been established. The plaintiff appealed.
On appeal, Priestley JA held that on the evidence it could be inferred that there was nothing special about the car that would make the owner or the insurance company adopt the uneconomic policy of paying more for the repairs than the cost of a substantially identical car.
Reason: Priestley JA said (at 137):
"In the absence of any evidence to the contrary ... the trial judge should have drawn the inference that the cost of repairs was no greater than the value of the car immediately before it was damaged and thus that the plaintiff had proved his damage..."