mary hartman said:
I disagree.....You sue the driver in small claims court for the difference why should an innocent driver lose money and a drunk driver get away with it?
Its worth it to try.
My response:
You may disagree, and I fully understand your feelings, but Juan is correct. A court can only award money up to the current fair market value of the property that was damaged or destroyed.
The law in this type of situation is fairly universal in all of the States. According to California law, if the property is completely destroyed or beyond repair, damages are usually based on the fair market value at time of destruction (i.e., just prior to the accident). [BAJI 14.21; Pelletier v. Eisenberg (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 558, 223 Cal.Rptr. 84, 89; Tatone v. Chin Bing (1936) 12 Cal.App.2d 543, 55 P.2d 933]
If the damage falls short of destruction (i.e., property can be repaired), there are basically two alternative measures of damages: the cost of repairs, or the difference in the property's value before and after the accident. [BAJI 14.20; Valencia v. Shell Oil Co. (1944) 23 Cal.2d 840, 147 P.2d 558]
Now, if this person wants to sue for Punitive Damages because the Defendant driver was drunk, that's another matter altogether.
IAAL
[Edited by I AM ALWAYS LIABLE on 05-05-2001 at 12:19 AM]