Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): hand, is the loss of an incident of ownership—the right to use. American Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Connecticut Light & Power Co., 470 F.Supp. 105, 108 (1979). A. Because United is seeking loss of use damages related to the time required to replace the property, we are presented with the issue of whether or not loss of use damages are recoverable in a case of total loss of property. While loss of use damages are normally awarded to a party deprived of a vehicle during the period of repair, traditionally, recovery could not be had for loss of a vehicle’s use at regardless of whether the plaintiff furnishes the funds to hire a substitute vehicle, he or she still suffers an injury while deprived of the vehicle and should be awarded damages for the inconvenience. Annot., Recovery For Loss (1964) (<HOLDING>); Chlopek v. Schmall, 224 Neb. 78, 396 N.W.2d 
 Holding statements: (A) holding plaintiff could not recover on nuisance action to recover for alleged damage to property he does not own or rent (B) holding plaintiffs could not obtain compensation for both lost value and lost profit (C) holding that plaintiff whose truck was demolished in an accident could not recover lost profits unless he could show that he could not obtain a suitable substitute vehicle (D) holding that plaintiff could not show that he was disabled because he conceded that he could do his job despite his impairment (E) holding that in an action to recover damages to a pulpwooder truck where there was testimony that pulpwood machinery could not be rented the jury was properly instructed as to lost profits
Output (English): holding that in an action to recover damages to a pulpwooder truck where there was testimony that pulpwood machinery could not be rented the jury was properly instructed as to lost profits