MERRILL STEVENS DRY DOCK COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
RAY NICHOLAS, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Merrill Stevens Dry Dock Company appealed a judgment awarding damages to Ray Nicholas for negligent handling of his yacht. The court reversed the damages award because the trial court impermissibly allowed double recovery by combining the vessel's diminution in value with repair costs, rather than electing one measure or the other.
The trial court erred in awarding damages by combining diminution in value before repairs with repair costs, constituting double recovery. A plaintiff may recover either the diminution in value before repairs or the cost of repairs plus diminution in value after repairs, but not both. The award for unpaid yard bills was proper.
[1] Damages for harm to chattels not amounting to total destruction include compensation for the difference in value before and after the harm, or the reasonable cost of repa…
[2] A plaintiff may elect to recover either the chattel's diminution in value before repairs or the cost of repairs plus the diminution in value after repairs, but not both.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Where a person is entitled to a judgment for harm to chattels not amounting to a total destruction in value, the damages include compensation for (a) the difference between the value of the chattel before the harm and the value after the harm, or at the plaintiffs election, the reasonable cost of repair or restoration where feasible, with due allowance for any difference between the original value and the value after repairs, and (b) the loss of use.”
Establishes the applicable legal standard for measuring damages to chattels under Restatement of Torts section 928
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRay Nicholas hired Merrill Stevens to service his 57-foot Chris Craft yacht. Merrill Stevens negligently handled the vessel, causing damage. Merrill S…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Cost Of Repair cases and more on FLexlaw
BASKIN, Judge.
Ray Nicholas filed an action against Merrill Stevens Dry Dock Company [Merrill Stevens] to recover for damages stemming from Merrill Stevens’ negligent handling of Nicholas’s 57 foot Chris Craft yacht. Merrill Stevens counterclaimed to obtain payment on Nicholas’s unpaid yard bills. Merrill Stevens admitted liability, and the case was tried by the court solely on the damages issues in both claims. At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court entered a final judgment awarding Nicholas $55,000 for damages to his boat and Merrill Stevens $1,450.44 on its counterclaim. Merrill Stevens appeals. We are asked to decide whether the trial court applied the correct measure of damages. We reverse only that portion of the final judgment awarding damages to Nicholas.
The applicable measure of damages appears in the Restatement of Torts, section 928 (1939), approved by this court in Airtech Service, Inc. v. MacDonald Construction Co., 150 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963):
Where a person is entitled to a judgment for harm to chattels not amounting to a total destruction in value, the damages include compensation for (a) the difference between the value of the chattel before the harm and the value after the harm, or at the plaintiffs election, the reasonable cost of repair or restoration where feasible, with due allowance for any difference between the original value and the value after repairs, and (b) the loss of use. (emphasis supplied) *
In awarding Nicholas the sum of $55,000, the trial court appears to have combined an amount reflecting the vessel’s diminution in value before repairs with the cost of anticipated repairs, providing Nicholas an impermissible double recovery. Nicholas is entitled to recover either the equivalent of the vessel’s diminution in value before repairs, or the cost of repairing the vessel plus the diminution in value after repairs; he may not recover upon both theories. McMinis v. Phillips, 351 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Airtech at 466. Thus, the trial court’s award of damages to Nicholas constitutes reversible error. As to the second issue, we find no abuse of the trial court’s discretion in the award pertaining to Merrill Stevens’ unpaid yard bills.
Reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded for a new trial as to the amount of Nicholas’s damages.
*
Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 928 (1979), is substantially similar.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
MCI Worldcom Network Servs., Inc. v. Mastec, Inc., 995 So. 2d 221 (Fla. 2008)…been totally destroyed. This is a completely separate issue from whether loss of profits or revenue has been or can be established. See AT&T Corp. v. Lanzo Constr. Co., 74 F. Supp. 2d 1223 (11th Cir. 1999); Merrill Stevens Dry Dock Co. v. Nicholas, 470 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Ft. Lauderdale Transfer & Rigging, Inc. v. Callahan Motor Co., Inc., 446 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Meakin v. Dreier, 209 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968); Airtech Serv., Inc. v. MacDonald Constr. Co., 150 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 3d D…
-
Badillo v. Hill, 570 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…e. The plaintiff is entitled to make an election as to theory of recovery, but cannot obtain a combination of cost of repairs plus lessened value before repairs, because that would permit a double recovery. Merrill Stevens Dry Dock Co. v. Nicholas, 470 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). In establishing loss of use damages, it is appropriate to consider the cost of renting a replacement vehicle during the period of repairs, whether or not the plaintiff has actually rented another car. See Meakin (applying Restat…
-
SEA TOW Servs. Int'l, Inc. v. SEA TOW Servs. OF Miami, Inc., 700 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Ocean Elec. Co. v. Hughes Lab., Inc., 636 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 648 So. 2d 723 (Fla.1994); Merrill Stevens Dry Dock Co. v. Nicholas, 470 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); McHale v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 409 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Airtech Serv., Inc. v. MacDONALD Constr. Co., 150 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- McMINIS v. Earle L. Phillips, 351 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)