JON MCMINIS AND LARRY MCMINIS, D/B/A PANAMA AVIATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
EARLE L. PHILLIPS, 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.
Panama Aviation appeals a jury verdict awarding Phillips damages for negligent aircraft repairs. The court affirms the judgment, holding that Phillips was entitled to recover the reasonable cost of repairs without proving the difference in the aircraft's value before and after the damage, as such evidence is not required when a plaintiff elects the repair-cost measure of damages.
A plaintiff need not submit proof of the difference between the original value and value after repairs when electing to recover the reasonable cost of repair or restoration as the measure of damages. The Restatement of Torts provides repair costs as an alternative measure specifically to prevent unjust enrichment of the plaintiff.
[1] When a plaintiff elects to recover the reasonable cost of repair for damage to a chattel, the damages awarded should account for any increase in the chattel's value resul…
[2] A plaintiff may recover the reasonable cost of repair for damage to a chattel, even without submitting proof of the chattel's value immediately before and after the damag…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“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 of 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”
Establishes the Restatement rule allowing plaintiff to elect repair cost as measure of damages
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePhillips hired Panama Aviation to repair and repaint his airplane, expecting the work to increase its value. Panama performed the work negligently. Ph…
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 Unjust Enrichment cases and more on FLexlaw
ERVIN, Judge.
Panama Aviation appeals a judgment entered following a jury verdict awarding Phillips damages for unworkmanlike and negligent repair done to his airplane by Panama. At trial, Phillips elected to use, as a measure of his damages, the cost of repair necessary to correct Panama’s negligent repairs, consisting of stripping, sanding and repainting the airplane.
The sole point on appeal concerns the failure of Phillips to submit proof of his airplane’s value immediately before and after the alleged damages. Panama contends Airtech Services, Inc. v. McDonald Construction Company, 150 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1963) is controlling as to the point involved. That opinion relies on the RESTATEMENT OF TORTS, § 928 (1939), which 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 (a) the difference between the value of the chattel before the harm and the value of 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 added.)
Phillips elected to recover the reasonable cost of repairs to his airplane. True, he failed to present proof of the difference between the original value and the value after repairs. Nevertheless the submission of such evidence was not the only avenue available to him necessary to the recovery of damages. The reasoning supporting the RESTATEMENT’s rule is clear. A plain tiff whose chattel has been damaged should not be unjustly enriched by the repairs necessitated by a tortfeasor. For example, following an automobile accident, a plaintiff should not have his car repaired so that it is in better condition than before the accident and then seek to hold a defendant liable for the entire cost of that repair. Phillips took his airplane to Panama with the idea that its value would be increased by the repainting. The increase in value was contemplated by the parties in entering into their agreement. A mechanical application of the RESTATEMENT rule would preclude Phillips from any recovery, since it is unrefuted the value of his airplane had appreciated following the repair work.
Moreover Phillips sued in two counts, one in contract for breach of the contract between the parties, and the second in tort for negligence. Panama has not argued the cost of the second repair job is an inadequate measure of damages arising from the breach. This being so, we need not decide whether Phillips properly established damages under his negligence theory. The final judgment is
AFFIRMED.
BOYER, Acting C. J., and MILLS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
MCI Worldcom Network Servs., Inc. v. Mastec, Inc., 995 So. 2d 221 (Fla. 2008)…em. 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 standard jury instruction, nor [*232] any of the existing Florida de…
-
Alonso v. Fernandez, 379 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…e, with due allowance for any difference between the original value and the value after repairs, and “(b) the loss of use.” ’ ” Airtech Service, Inc. v. MacDonald Construction Co., 150 So. 2d 465, 466 (Fla.3d DCA 1963); see also McMinis v. Phillips, 351 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). This rule is applicable in a tort action involving a damaged motor vehicle so as to include, as a separate claim, loss of use damages amounting to the reasonable rental value of a substitute vehicle during the time the plaintiff…
-
Hampton-Chrysler-Plymouth-Dodge, Inc. v. Daris White, 448 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…and dissenting. I agree with the majority that given the posture of this case, appellee elected as the measure of damages the cost to repair properly his motor vehicle which was required by the appellant’s defective repairs. In McMinis v. Phillips, 351 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), we relied upon Restatement of Torts § 928 (1939), concerning the measure of damages to a bailed vehicle necessary to correct negligent repairs: Where a person is entitled to a judgment for harm to chattels not amounting to a to…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Airtech Serv., Inc. v. MacDONALD Constr. Co., 150 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)