S & M, LLC, d/b/a Huntsville Cab Company v. Kevin Burchel, as personal representative of the estate of Roy William Burchel
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL:
6/8/12
Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance
s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r .
R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e Reporter o f Decisions,
Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s ,
300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1
((334)
2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made
b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r .
ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
OCTOBER TERM, 2011-2012
2110242
S & M, LLC, d/b/a H u n t s v i l l e Cab Company
v.
Kevin B u r c h e l , as p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f the e s t a t e o f
Roy W i l l i a m Burchel
Appeal from Morgan C i r c u i t Court
(CV-10-43)
BRYAN, J u d g e .
S & M, L L C , d/b/a H u n t s v i l l e Cab Company
Cab"), appeals
("Huntsville
from a judgment i n f a v o r o f K e v i n B u r c h e l , t h e
p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h e e s t a t e o f Roy W i l l i a m
("the
personal
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e " ) . We a f f i r m .
Burchel
2110242
On A p r i l
2 1 , 2008, a t a x i c a b owned b y H u n t s v i l l e Cab was
damaged
in a
collision
William
Burchel
("Roy")
with
an
automobile
i n Decatur.
The c o s t
driven
Cab
replaced
the
damaged
Roy
to repair the
t a x i c a b w o u l d have e x c e e d e d i t s f a i r m a r k e t v a l u e ;
Huntsville
by
taxicab
therefore,
instead
of
repairing i t .
Huntsville
Cab s u e d Roy i n t h e Morgan D i s t r i c t
seeking
to recover
damages
taxicab
but also
pending
i n the d i s t r i c t
not only
f o r t h e damage
f o r l o s s of i t s use. While
court,
Court,
Roy p a i d
to
the action
i t s
was
H u n t s v i l l e Cab t h e
f a i r m a r k e t v a l u e o f t h e t a x i c a b , w h i c h was $5,387.50, a n d t h e
cost
i n c u r r e d b y H u n t s v i l l e Cab i n m o d i f y i n g
the replacement
a u t o m o b i l e t o make i t s u i t a b l e f o r u s e as a t a x i c a b ,
totaled
the
$2,765.95. Roy d i e d w h i l e
district
substituted
entered
court,
and
a judgment
i n favor
which
t h e a c t i o n was p e n d i n g i n
the personal
f o r Roy. F o l l o w i n g
1
a trial,
representative
the d i s t r i c t
of the personal
was
court
representative
w i t h r e s p e c t t o H u n t s v i l l e Cab's c l a i m f o r damages f o r l o s s o f
T h e m o d i f i c a t i o n s n e c e s s a r y t o make t h e r e p l a c e m e n t
a u t o m o b i l e s u i t a b l e f o r u s e as a t a x i c a b i n c l u d e d , among o t h e r
t h i n g s , i n s t a l l i n g a meter and a r a d i o i n i t , i n s t a l l i n g a
l i g h t on i t s r o o f , p a i n t i n g i t , and i n s t a l l i n g l e t t e r i n g on
it.
1
2
2110242
use
of the
taxicab.
Huntsville
a trial
on
de
Cab
appealed to the
novo. F o l l o w i n g
September
14,
2011,
personal representative
circuit
a bench t r i a l ,
entered
a
the
judgment
in
circuit
favor
for
court,
of
the
w i t h r e s p e c t t o H u n t s v i l l e Cab's c l a i m
f o r damages f o r l o s s o f use
the
Morgan C i r c u i t C o u r t
of the t a x i c a b . I n p e r t i n e n t
c o u r t ' s judgment
part,
states:
"A number o f m a t e r i a l f a c t s i n t h i s c a s e a r e
u n d i s p u t e d . On A p r i l 1, 2008, [ H u n t s v i l l e C a b ' s ]
taxi
cab
was
struck
i n the
s i d e by
a
vehicle
o p e r a t e d by t h e d e c e d e n t , Roy B u r c h e l . B u r c h e l i s
l i a b l e f o r t h e damage c a u s e d t o t h e cab. I t
was
deemed t o be a t o t a l l o s s and was n o t r e p a i r e d
by
[Huntsville
Cab].
[Roy]
paid
[Huntsville
Cab]
$8,153.45 f o r t h e l o s s o f i t s v e h i c l e p l u s t h e c o s t
o f o u t f i t t i n g i t as a cab. The s o l e i s s u e f o r t h e
C o u r t t o d e c i d e i s what l o s s - o f - u s e damages, i f any,
[ H u n t s v i l l e Cab]
i s e n t i t l e d t o r e c o v e r from the
date of the wreck u n t i l i t o b t a i n e d a replacement
v e h i c l e and o u t f i t t e d i t f o r s e r v i c e as a cab.
"The
Court's decision
on [ H u n t s v i l l e
Cab's]
demand f o r l o s s - o f - u s e damages i s c o n t r o l l e d by t h e
following
r u l e of
law:
a party
cannot
recover
damages f o r b o t h t h e t o t a l l o s s o f a v e h i c l e and t h e
l o s s o f use o f t h a t same v e h i c l e . F u l l e r v. M a r t i n ,
[41 A l a . App. 160, 164] 125 So. 2d 4, 7 ( 1 9 6 0 ) ; L a r y
v. V a l i a n t I n s u r a n c e Co.,
864
So.
2d 1105,
1110
(Ala.
Civ.
App.
2002). Because
[Roy]
has
paid
[ H u n t s v i l l e Cab] t h e v a l u e o f t h e t o t a l e d cab w h i c h
i t d i d n o t r e p a i r , [ H u n t s v i l l e Cab]
as a m a t t e r o f
law i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o r e c o v e r l o s s - o f - u s e damages.
" A c c o r d i n g l y , i t i s ORDERED AND ADJUDGED by t h e
C o u r t t h a t a j u d g m e n t be, and h e r e b y i s , r e n d e r e d i n
3
2110242
f a v o r o f t h e [ p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e ] and a g a i n s t
[ H u n t s v i l l e Cab] on t h e r e m a i n i n g c l a i m f o r damages
in this
c a s e . The
[personal
representative]
is
d i s c h a r g e d f r o m any f u r t h e r o b l i g a t i o n o r l i a b i l i t y
to
[ H u n t s v i l l e Cab]."
Huntsville
Cab
timely
appealed
to
the
supreme
court,
w h i c h t r a n s f e r r e d t h e a p p e a l t o t h i s c o u r t p u r s u a n t t o § 12-27 ( 6 ) , A l a . Code
Huntsville
determining
1975.
Cab
that
argues
i t was
that
the c i r c u i t
not e n t i t l e d
court
to recover
erred
in
damages f o r
l o s s o f use o f t h e t a x i c a b because i t had been compensated f o r
the t o t a l l o s s o f the t a x i c a b . Because the m a t e r i a l f a c t s are
undisputed,
the issue
before
us
involves
only
the
c o u r t ' s a p p l i c a t i o n of the law t o u n d i s p u t e d f a c t s .
our
r e v i e w i s de n o v o . See S t a t e
Motley,
909 So. 2d 806, 810
only
circuit
Therefore,
Farm Mut. A u t o . I n s . Co. v.
( A l a . 2005)
before
us i n v o l v e
facts,
("Because t h e i s s u e s
o u r r e v i e w i s de n o v o . " ) .
I n Hunt v. Ward,
supreme
court
automobile
the a p p l i c a t i o n o f law t o u n d i s p u t e d
262 A l a . 379, 79 So. 2d 20
addressed
damaged
the
measure
in a collision.
of
(1955), t h e
damages
In p e r t i n e n t
for
part,
supreme c o u r t s t a t e d :
"The p r i m a r y r u l e i s g e n e r a l l y s t a t e d t o be t h a t
t h e damage i s e m b r a c e d i n t h e f o r m u l a t h a t i t i s t h e
4
an
the
2110242
d i f f e r e n c e i n the value of the [automobile]
before
and a f t e r t h e a c c i d e n t , c a u s e d by t h e a c c i d e n t . I f
i t i s so damaged as n o t t o be r e p a i r a b l e and has no
v a l u e a f t e r t h e a c c i d e n t , i t w o u l d be s i m p l y i t s
value at the time of the a c c i d e n t ( l e s s i t s junk
v a l u e , i f a n y ) . On t h i s amount i n t e r e s t s h o u l d be
a l l o w e d . I f i t i s r e p a i r a b l e and t h e owner s e e s f i t
t o r e p a i r i t and w h i l e d o i n g so he i s d e p r i v e d o f
i t s use and i n c u r s o t h e r e x p e n s e i n t h a t c o n n e c t i o n ,
he may have t h e r e a s o n a b l e c o s t o f t h e p a r t s and
l a b o r i n making the
repairs together
with
the
reasonable
cost
of
t r a n s p o r t i n g i t and
other
i n c i d e n t a l c o s t , i f any, and t h e r e a s o n a b l e v a l u e o f
i t s use o r h i r e d u r i n g t h a t t i m e , on t h e t h e o r y t h a t
he c o u l d have h i r e d one f o r use d u r i n g t h a t p e r i o d :
a l s o i n t e r e s t on t h e t o t a l as i n d i c a t e d a b o v e . "
262
A l a . a t 384-85, 79
So.
2d a t 25-26
C i t i n g Hunt v. Ward, among o t h e r
(emphasis added).
authorities,
of appeals
s t a t e d i n F u l l e r v. M a r t i n , 41 A l a . App.
125
4,
So.
2d
7
( A l a . C t . App.
the
court
160,
164,
1960):
"The g e n e r a l r u l e i s t h a t i f t h e a u t o m o b i l e i s
i n j u r e d so t h a t i t c a n n o t be r e p a i r e d t h e measure o f
damages
is
i t s value
immediately
before
the
a c c i d e n t , l e s s i t s w r e c k a g e v a l u e , i f any. R e c o v e r y
c a n n o t be had f o r b o t h t o t a l l o s s o f an a u t o m o b i l e
and l o s s o f use o f t h e same v e h i c l e . "
(Emphasis added.) L i k e w i s e , i n L a r y v. V a l i a n t I n s u r a n c e
864
So.
stated:
2d
1105,
"Our
1110
(Ala.
Civ.
supreme
court
has
App.
Co.,
2002),
this
court
previously
held
that
' [ r ] e c o v e r y c a n n o t be had f o r b o t h t o t a l l o s s o f an a u t o m o b i l e
and
l o s s o f use
of
the
same v e h i c l e . ' F u l l e r
5
v.
Martin,
41
2110242
Ala.
App. 160, 164, 125 So. 2d 4, 7
Ward, 262 A l a .
379, 79 So. 2d 20
(1960)
(citing
(1955))."
D e s p i t e t h e r u l e e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e f o r e g o i n g
that
damages
damaged
automobile
compensated
Wilson
o f u s e may
is
a
for i t stotal
& Co. v . S i m s ,
indicates
use
f o r loss
n o t be
total
loss,
Hunt v .
loss
recovered
and
Huntsville
authorities
the
i f the
owner
Cab a r g u e s
250 A l a . 414, 34 So. 2d 689
is
that
(1948),
t h a t i n " c e r t a i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s " damages f o r l o s s o f
o f a damaged c o m m e r c i a l v e h i c l e
may be r e c o v e r e d
despite
i t s b e i n g a t o t a l l o s s a n d t h e owner's h a v i n g b e e n c o m p e n s a t e d
for
i t stotal
vehicle
an
In Wilson
& Co. v . S i m s ,
a
commercial
owned b y Ramona Sims was damaged i n a c o l l i s i o n
vehicle
resulted
owned
by W i l s o n
i n Sims's v e h i c l e
repaired.
lease
loss.
Sims s u e d W i l s o n ,
i n d i c a t i n g that
& Co.,
I n c . ("Wilson"),
being out of service
and, d u r i n g
her vehicle
trial,
was l e a s e d
had l o s t
as a r e s u l t o f h e r v e h i c l e
for
repairs.
Sims d i d n o t i n t r o d u c e
which
w h i l e i t was
introduced a
t o Deaton Truck
L i n e s when i t was damaged and i n d i c a t i n g t h e amount o f
she
with
rent
being out of s e r v i c e
any e v i d e n c e t e n d i n g t o
p r o v e t h e m a r k e t r e n t a l v a l u e o f h e r v e h i c l e w h i l e i t was o u t
of s e r v i c e
f o r r e p a i r s . M o r e o v e r , t h e j u r y was n o t i n s t r u c t e d
6
2110242
r e g a r d i n g t h e a p p l i c a b l e measure o f damages. The
jury returned
a v e r d i c t i n f a v o r o f S i m s , and W i l s o n a p p e a l e d . R e v e r s i n g
judgment
pertinent
in
favor
of
Sims,
the
supreme
court
stated,
part:
"The r u l e i n A l a b a m a f o r t h e measure o f damages
for
the
i n j u r y to a commercial v e h i c l e
is
the
damages w h i c h w o u l d r e m u n e r a t e t h e p l a i n t i f f
for
necessary repairs i n s u b s t a n t i a l l y restoring
the
v e h i c l e t o i t s f o r m e r c o n d i t i o n and t h e m a r k e t v a l u e
o f i t s use o r h i r e d u r i n g t h e t i m e r e q u i r e d t o make
s u c h r e p a i r s and f i t i t f o r b u s i n e s s . S o u t h e r n Ry.
Co. v. R e e d e r , 152 A l a . 227, 236,
44 So. 699,
126
Am.St.Rep. 23 [ ( 1 9 0 7 ) ] ; P l y l a r v. J o n e s , 207
Ala.
372, 92 So. 445 [ ( 1 9 2 2 ) ] . T h i s seems t o be t h e r u l e
in
most o f
the
jurisdictions.
4 A.L.R.
1352,
A n n o t a t i o n a; 1355 b; 78 A.L.R. 911, A n n o t a t i o n a,
912 b.
"The
j u r y was g i v e n no i n s t r u c t i o n s as t o t h e
c o r r e c t measure o f damages i n t h e c a s e , n o r
was
t h e r e any e v i d e n c e o f t h e r e a s o n a b l e v a l u e o f t h e
use
or h i r e of the d i s a b l e d v e h i c l e d u r i n g
the
p e r i o d i t was o u t o f s e r v i c e f o r n e c e s s a r y r e p a i r s .
The j u r y was a l l o w e d t o s p e c u l a t e as t o t h i s e l e m e n t
o f damages and t o p r o c e e d on t h e w r o n g t h e o r y i n
a w a r d i n g a r e c o v e r y and t h e p r e d i c a t e f o r e r r o r l a i d
i n t h i s r e g a r d by o b j e c t i o n t o c e r t a i n e v i d e n c e and
i n m o t i o n f o r new t r i a l n e c e s s i t a t e s a r e v e r s a l o f
the judgment.
"The w r i t t e n l e a s e ( n o t e d by t h e r e p o r t e r )
of
the
[ v e h i c l e ] to Deaton Truck L i n e s a f f o r d e d
no
b a s i s on w h i c h t o r e s t s u c h an award, s i n c e t h e r e
was no p r o o f t h a t t h e l e a s e was commensurate w i t h
the market or r e a s o n a b l e r e n t a l v a l u e of the v e h i c l e
and i t s i n t r o d u c t i o n d i d n o t s u f f i c e as p r o o f t o
s a t i s f y t h e r u l e as t o t h e measure o f t h i s e l e m e n t
of
damages
nor
to
relieve
them
from
being
7
the
in
2110242
speculative.
"[Sims] sought to r e s t r e c o v e r y f o r the l o s s of
use o f t h e [ v e h i c l e ] on p r o o f o f l o s s o f p r o f i t s
d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d i t was l a i d up f o r r e p a i r s , b u t
t h i s i s n o t p e r m i s s i b l e i n t h i s k i n d o f a c a s e . The
w e i g h t o f a u t h o r i t y does n o t s u p p o r t s u c h a t h e o r y
n o r have our own c o u r t s s a n c t i o n e d i t . The f o l l o w i n g
t e x t i n A m e r i c a n J u r i s p r u d e n c e , V o l . 5, p. 908,
§
751,
s t a t e s what we c o n c e i v e t o be t h e
pertinent
r u l e : ' W h i l e t h e l o s s o f p r o s p e c t i v e p r o f i t s may,
in
c e r t a i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s , be c o n s i d e r e d as an e l e m e n t
o f damages f o r i n j u r y t o a c o m m e r c i a l v e h i c l e , t h e
w e i g h t o f a u t h o r i t y i s t o t h e c o n t r a r y . I n no e v e n t ,
h o w e v e r , may one r e c o v e r f o r l o s s o f p r o f i t s t h a t
are p u r e l y s p e c u l a t i v e or p r o b l e m a t i c a l . '
"The
' c e r t a i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s ' mentioned i n the
q u o t e d t e x t -- and n o t h e r e p e r t i n e n t u n d e r t h e
p l e a d i n g and p r o o f i f s u c h e x c e p t i o n t o t h e r u l e
were t o be a p p r o v e d -- g e n e r a l l y a p p e a r s t o r e f e r t o
t h o s e c a s e s where an a w a r d o f l o s s o f p r o f i t s i s
a l l o w e d when no s u b s t i t u t e m o t o r v e h i c l e can
be
o b t a i n e d i n the market w h i l e p l a i n t i f f ' s v e h i c l e i s
b e i n g r e p a i r e d . 4 A.L.R. 1361 c, and c a s e s ; 42 C . J .
1294, § 1171, and c a s e s n. 52, 53, p. 1298, §
1179,
n.
32."
250
Ala.
a t 415-16, 34
H u n t s v i l l e Cab
So.
2d
at
argues that
690-91
the
(emphasis added).
c a s e now
b e f o r e us
falls
w i t h i n the " c e r t a i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s " r e f e r r e d to i n W i l s o n &
v.
Sims
and
that,
therefore,
damages f o r l o s s o f use
of
i t was
i t s taxicab
entitled
while
to
recover
i t located
m o d i f i e d a r e p l a c e m e n t a u t o m o b i l e . However, i n W i l s o n & Co.
Sims
the
damaged
vehicle
was
8
repairable
and
was
Co.
and
v.
indeed
2110242
repaired.
I n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , on t h e o t h e r h a n d , H u n t s v i l l e
Cab's
taxicab
Wilson
& Co.
was
v.
not
Sims
repairable
--
i t was
i s consistent
with
a
total
Hunt
v.
loss.
Ward i n
indicating that
i f t h e damaged a u t o m o b i l e " i s r e p a i r a b l e
the
f i t
owner
deprived
of
sees
to repair
i t and w h i l e
o f i t s u s e ... he may have
i t s use o r h i r e d u r i n g
that
so he i s
... t h e r e a s o n a b l e
time,
c o u l d have h i r e d one f o r u s e d u r i n g
doing
and
value
on t h e t h e o r y t h a t
that period
he
" 262 A l a .
a t 385, 79 So. 2d a t 26. However, b e c a u s e t h e damaged v e h i c l e
i n W i l s o n & Co. v. Sims was
to
have
i t repaired,
repairable
i t does
and t h e owner
not purport
elected
to state
a
rule
a p p l i c a b l e when t h e damaged a u t o m o b i l e i s a t o t a l l o s s and t h e
owner
has
damaged
been
compensated
automobile
for i t s total
i s a total
compensated f o r i t s t o t a l
loss
loss.
and t h e owner
When
the
has
been
l o s s , the r u l e i n Alabama i s t h a t
t h e owner may n o t r e c o v e r damages f o r l o s s o f u s e . See Hunt v.
Ward, L a r y v. V a l i a n t
I n s . Co., and F u l l e r v. M a r t i n .
Thus,
H u n t s v i l l e Cab's argument b a s e d on W i l s o n & Co. v. Sims has no
merit.
H u n t s v i l l e Cab a l s o a r g u e s t h a t t h i s
court
s h o u l d change
t h e r u l e i n A l a b a m a t h a t , i f t h e damaged a u t o m o b i l e i s a t o t a l
9
2110242
loss
the
and t h e owner has b e e n c o m p e n s a t e d f o r i t s t o t a l
owner may
not recover
H u n t s v i l l e Cab s a y s ,
being
made
damages;
and
whole,
for loss
o f use because,
(1) t h e r u l e p r e v e n t s H u n t s v i l l e Cab f r o m
which
of
compensatory
(2) e c o n o m i c f a c t o r s h a v e c h a n g e d s i n c e
Hunt v. Ward
F u l l e r v. M a r t i n
allow
damages
loss,
i s the
purpose
were d e c i d e d ;
(3) o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s
t h e owner o f a damaged a u t o m o b i l e t h a t
i s a total
loss
t o r e c o v e r damages f o r l o s s o f u s e ; a n d (4) i t i s i l l o g i c a l t o
allow
t h e owner o f a damaged a u t o m o b i l e t h a t i s r e p a i r a b l e
to
r e c o v e r damages f o r l o s s o f u s e w h i l e d e n y i n g s u c h a r e c o v e r y
to
t h e owner o f a damaged
automobile that
However, t h e supreme c o u r t e s t a b l i s h e d
Hunt
v.
Ward,
precedent.
and
this
court
i s a total
loss.
the e x i s t i n g rule i n
i s bound
See § 12-3-16, A l a . Code 1975
by
supreme
decisions
of
the
Supreme C o u r t s h a l l g o v e r n t h e h o l d i n g s and d e c i s i o n s
of
the
courts
of appeals
" ) . Therefore,
("The
court
we
must
apply the
existing
rule
i n the present
case. Because H u n t s v i l l e
taxicab
was
a
and
compensated
recover
loss
f o r the t o t a l
court properly
to
total
loss
Huntsville
Cab
of the taxicab,
Cab's
had
the
been
circuit
d e t e r m i n e d t h a t H u n t s v i l l e Cab was n o t e n t i t l e d
damages
for
loss
10
of
use
of
the
taxicab.
2110242
Accordingly,
we a f f i r m
t h e judgment o f t h e c i r c u i t
AFFIRMED.
P i t t m a n , Thomas, and Moore, J J . , c o n c u r .
Thompson,
P.J., concurs
specially.
11
court.
2110242
THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e ,
Because
this
court
concurring
i s bound
specially.
by
d e c i s i o n i n Hunt v. Ward, 262 A l a . 379,
I
concur
fully
i n d i c a t e my
of-use
i n the main
opinion.
our
supreme
79 So. 2d 20
I write
court's
(1955),
specially
d i s a g r e e m e n t w i t h t h e h o l d i n g i n Hunt t h a t
damages
are
limited
to
damaged
but
to
loss-
repairable
c o m m e r c i a l v e h i c l e s and n o t a v a i l a b l e i n t h e c a s e o f a damaged
c o m m e r c i a l v e h i c l e t h a t c a n n o t be r e p a i r e d .
I agree, i n s t e a d ,
w i t h t h e Supreme C o u r t o f Oklahoma, w h i c h , as t o t h i s
issue,
has w r i t t e n :
" ' [ T ] h i s C o u r t f a i l s t o see any l o g i c a l o r p r a c t i c a l
r e a s o n f o r a d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n r e p a i r a b l e and
u n r e p a i r a b l e damage t o a c o m m e r c i a l v e h i c l e w h i c h
w o u l d j u s t i f y l o s s o f u s e f o r t h e f o r m e r and n o t f o r
the
latter
even
though
t h e owner s u f f e r s l o s s
b e c a u s e he c a n n o t i m m e d i a t e l y r e p l a c e t h e v e h i c l e .
I n b o t h i n s t a n c e s t h e owner has l o s t t h e same t h i n g ,
t h e u s e o f h i s v e h i c l e , and he s h o u l d be a b l e t o
r e c o v e r t h i s l o s s o f use i n e i t h e r c a s e . ' "
DTS Tank S e r v . , I n c . v. V a n d e r v e e n ,
1984)
Cir.
683 P.2d 1345, 1347
( q u o t i n g D e n n i s v. F o r d M o t o r Co.,
1973)).
259-61
See
(Iowa 1 9 8 2 ) .
a l s o Long
(Okla.
471 F.2d 733, 736
v. M c A l l i s t e r ,
319
I u r g e o u r supreme c o u r t
i t s h o l d i n g i n Hunt and t o a d o p t what, i n my
to
N.W.2d
(3d
256,
reconsider
o p i n i o n , i s the
more r a t i o n a l a p p r o a c h t o f u l l y c o m p e n s a t i n g an i n j u r e d p a r t y
12
2110242
f o r t h e t o t a l l o s s o f i t s c o m m e r c i a l v e h i c l e by a l l o w i n g
that
injured party
that
vehicle
t o r e c o v e r damages f o r t h e l o s s o f u s e o f
d u r i n g the time i t seeks a replacement
13
vehicle.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.