noting conclusion after comparing both sections and including Reporter’s note comment to the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 929 that "[t]he black letter has been reworded in the interest of clarity”
How later courts described this case
- noting conclusion after comparing both sections and including Reporter’s note comment to the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 929 that "[t]he black letter has been reworded in the interest of clarity”
- proper measure of damage when property is damaged by tort is the diminution in market value caused by the tort
- just compensation without enrichment
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
JONES, J.,
concurring.
This case has been made unfortunately complex by the plaintiffs’ asking too much and proving too little. In my opinion, plaintiffs should be entitled to the reasonable cost to repair or replace their premises so long as this cost is reasonably related to the market value of the premises. The evidence presented by plaintiffs in this case is that the cost of replacement was $228,000, with a market value of the premises of no more than $168,000. 1 Plaintiffs made no effort to reconcile these figures in a reasonable relationship and failed to prove the difference between the before- and after-market value of the premises. As a result plaintiffs will end up with nothing, when they were entitled to reasonable compensation for their loss.
As noted in the majority opinion, this amount was never proven.