AIRTECH SERVICE, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
MACDONALD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, 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.
Airtech Service appealed a jury verdict awarding MacDonald Construction $51,000 in damages for fire damage to its aircraft while under Airtech's care. The key issue was whether damages should be limited to repair costs or could include the difference in aircraft value when the owner elected not to repair.
The court held that when a property owner elects not to repair damaged chattels, damages should include the difference between the value of the property before and after the damage, plus any incidental expenses caused by loss of use, not merely the cost of repairs.
“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 plaintiff's 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.”
The controlling legal rule for computing damages to personal property, showing plaintiff has election between repair cost or value difference methods.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMacDonald Construction's aircraft was damaged by fire on February 23, 1956, while under Airtech's care for maintenance and repair. After discussing re…
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 Loss Of Use Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, defendant below, seeks review of an adverse final judgment entered consequent upon a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff.
The appellee brought suit against the appellant seeking to recover for damage allegedly done to its aircraft by fire on February 23, 1956, while it was under the care, custody, and control of the appellant for the purpose of maintenance and repair. The complaint alleged that the fire was caused by the negligence of the appellant’s employees while acting within the scope of their employment. It further alleged certain special damages allegedly occasioned by the loss of use of the damaged aircraft. Appellant answered admitting liability and alleging that the difference between the *466reasonable market value of the aircraft before and after the fire, and/or the cost of repairs, was $20,000. Subsequently, appellant deposited $20,000 in the registry of the court, tendering that amount in full and complete settlement of the appellee’s claim. Summary judgment was entered in favor of the appellee on the question of liability and the cause went to trial before a jury on the sole issue of damages.
At the trial it was made to appear that, after discussing repairs with several repair installations, the appellee decided, upon the recommendation of its pilot, that the aircraft should not be repaired. Accordingly, requests for bids on an as-is/where-is basis were submitted to several persons and companies. These requests indicated that the aircraft had been damaged by fire but did not indicate the extent of the damage. On July 28, 1956, the aircraft was sold to the highest bidder for $17,556. The new owner had the aircraft ferried to California, where it was examined and tested and found to be structurally sound. He then had it repaired at a cost of about $5,000. At the close of all the evidence the cause was submitted to the jury which returned a verdict in favor of the appel-lee in the amount of $51,000. The judgment appealed was entered pursuant thereto.
The appellant contends that the appellee’s damages should be limited to the cost of repairs and cites the trial court’s failure to so instruct the jury as error.
The rule of damages applicable to the case at bar is succinctly stated in Restatement, Torts, § 928 (1939) as follows:
“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 plaintiff’s 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 the case at bar, the appellee elected not to repair and, therefore, was entitled to be compensated in damages for the difference between the value of the aircraft before it was damaged and its value after damage, plus any incidental expenses caused by the loss of its use. We have reviewed the instructions given in this regard and the requested instructions, and conclude that those given were, in the aggregate, complete and correct. Leonardi v. Walgreen Co., Fla.App.1962, 146 So.2d 773; Solomon v. State, Fla.App. 1962, 145 So.2d 492; Stiles v. Calvetto, Fla.App.1962, 137 So.2d 17.
We have considered the appellant’s remaining contentions and found them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Meakin v. Dreier, 209 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)…ly before (the court) * * * on this appeal.” See 118 So. 2d, supra at page 90. Florida has adopted the Restatement of Torts as the rule of damages appli [*254] cable for injuries to chattels. Airtech Service, Inc. v. MacDonald Construction Company, 150 So. 2d 465 (Fla.App. 3rd 1963). The Restatement of Torts, Section 928 (A.L.I. 1939), states: “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 * * * (b) The los…
-
The Keyes Co. v. Shea, 372 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)…f damage for injury to personal property: Hillside Van Lines, Inc. v. Matalon, 297 So. 2d 848 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1974); Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Skyway Marine, Inc. 251 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1971); Airtech Service, Inc. v. MacDonald Construction Co. 150 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1963). However, a workable statement of the measure of damage to be used in this case of injury to real property is not so easily found in the Florida cases. A widely quoted statement of that rule is set forth in 25 C.J.S. Damages § 84…
-
MCI Worldcom Network Servs., Inc. v. Mastec, Inc., 995 So. 2d 221 (Fla. 2008)…Torts section 928 when assessing loss-of-use damages); Travelers Indem. Co. v. Parkman, 300 So. 2d 284, 285 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974) (same); Meakin v. Dreier, 209 So. 2d 252, 253-54 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968) (same); Airtech Serv., Inc. v. MacDonald Constr. Co., 150 So. 2d 465, 466 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963) (same); McMinis v. Phillips, 351 So. 2d 1141, 1141 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977) (applying Restatement (Second) of Torts section 928). However, neither the comments to this section of the Restatement (Second), the comments to Florida’s…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Solomon v. State, 145 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- Stiles v. Calvetto, 137 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- Leonardi v. Walgreen Co., 146 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)