Case Name: HAMPTON-CHRYSLER-PLYMOUTH-DODGE, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Daris WHITE, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1984-04-11
Citations: 448 So. 2d 87
Docket Number: No. AS-488
Parties: HAMPTON-CHRYSLER-PLYMOUTH-DODGE, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Daris WHITE, Appellee.
Judges: JOANOS, J., and CHARLES E. MINER, Jr., Associate Judge, concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 448
Pages: 87–89

Head Matter:
HAMPTON-CHRYSLER-PLYMOUTH-DODGE, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Daris WHITE, Appellee.
No. AS-488.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
April 11, 1984.
Arthur C. Beal, Jr. of McConnaughhay, Roland & Maida, Tallahassee, for appellant.
John R. Weed, Perry, for appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Hampton Chrysler-Plymouth-Dodge, Inc. appeals from the trial court's final judgment, entered pursuant to a jury verdict, awarding Daris White $5,000 for loss of use and $6,191.45 in damages for breach of warranty in regard to negligently done body repair work on White's 1980 Cadillac Sedan DeVille. We find no error in the loss of use award but conclude that the damages for breach of warranty cannot be sustained. In particular, we find the trial court improperly permitted White to introduce testimony, over objection, as to the value of his car before and after it was repaired.
While the general rule in Florida is that the measure of damages for a tor-tious injury to a pleasure vehicle that may be repaired is the difference between the reasonable market value of that vehicle immediately before the accident and its reasonable market value immediately afterward, McMinis v. Phillips, 351 So.2d 1141 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), this is not such a case and instead involves the measure of damages recoverable for defective repairs. Here, the damages recoverable amount to the "difference between the value of the vehicle in its defective condition and its value in the condition in which it would have been if the repairs had been properly performed, together with all other losses proximately resulting from the defective repair work, and which can be regarded as within the contemplation of the parties," such as loss of use. 38 Am.Jur.2d, Garages and Filling and Parking Stations, § 80 (1968); also see Lynch v. Florida Mining & Materials Corp., 384 So.2d 325 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Pinellas County v. Lee Construction Co., 375 So.2d 293 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). This difference is ordinarily measured by the reasonable cost of remedying the faulty work, Pinellas County, supra, and not a "before/after" valuation. To hold otherwise would punish Hampton not only for its defective performance in repairing the car but also for the loss of value occasioned by the wrecks that necessitated the repair work in the first place. Further, White has been amply recompensed for the period of time he was without the services of his' car. Since the properly admitted evidence shows that these negligently done repairs can be rectified by, at most, a further $750 in additional repairs, as Hampton concedes, we direct a remittitur reducing the damages for breach of warranty to $750. The loss of use award shall stand.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
JOANOS, J., and CHARLES E. MINER, Jr., Associate Judge, concur.
ERVIN, C.J., specially concurring and dissenting.