Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
P filed a complaint against D. P sought damages for losses incurred by a fire at their home. American National Fire Insurance Company (P) also filed a subrogated claim for insurance they paid to P. P alleged negligence, breach of contract and strict liability in tort. D asserted negligence on the part of P. At trial, P presented a 31-page itemized list of the items lost and their replacement value. The jury determined D to be 60% negligent and P to be 40% negligent. The jury set the damages for P at $425,985. This figure represented the total losses claimed for house reconstruction, living expenses during reconstruction, loss of jewelry and personalty replacement costs. The trial judge ruled the measure of damages should be the market value at the time of the fire. P did not state how they arrived at the value for each item. Instead, they selected an apparent cross-section of the items. P set the value from experience in buying the articles in the past, pricing them at stores or in newspaper ads. Mrs. Lane, based her opinion on her experience as the owner of a retail clothing store and as supervisor of charity flea markets. The jury was instructed in a cursory manner on depreciation and appreciation to use their common sense. During deliberations, the jury sought the totals on the 31-page list. To get a verdict, the jury added the $209,615 for personalty to the $216,370 total of the other three items to arrive at their verdict. The judge, on Ps' motion, added the omitted $38,477 in repair costs to arrive at the judgment figure. The court reduced the award to the market value of the personalty at the time of the loss. D and P both appealed. The final award was to P for $278,677.20
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co