Opinion ID: 2209506
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 24

Heading: Damages for Personal Property: Woollen's Vehicle

Text: In his second assignment of error, Woollen claims the trial court erred in denying him recovery of damages for his vehicle, which Woollen claims was totally destroyed in the accident. In support of his damage claim, Woollen relies upon the following trial evidence: (1) photos of the automobile at the accident site, (2) an accident report, and (3) Woollen's testimony that he purchased the car for $3,000 several weeks before the accident and that he had paid sales tax on the purchase. Woollen concedes on appeal that his evidence is not as precise as it might have been. Brief for appellee at 25. Under Nebraska law, the measure of recovery for damage to personal property that cannot be repaired and thereby restored to substantially its condition immediately before the damage occurred is the lost market value plus the reasonable value of the loss of use of the property for the reasonable amount of time required to obtain a suitable replacement. Chlopek v. Schmall, 224 Neb. 78, 89, 396 N.W.2d 103, 110 (1986). In order to recover this lost market value, a party must show (1) that the damage to the property is such that it cannot be repaired and thereby restored to substantially its condition immediately before the damage occurred or that the reasonable cost of repair exceeds the difference in market value of the property immediately before and immediately after the injury, (2) the reasonable market value of the property immediately before the accident, and (3) the reasonable market value of the property immediately after the accident. Howells Elevator v. Stanco Farm Supply Co., 235 Neb. 456, 463, 455 N.W.2d 777, 782 (1990). Compare NJI2d Civ. 4.20. A review of the record shows that the proof of the vehicle's value before the accident is thin and that, other than photographs of the vehicle, there is no evidence of the vehicle's value after the accident. We find no error in the trial court's determination that absent evidence of the car's value after the accident, it could not award damages to Woollen for the loss of his vehicle. We affirm the decision of the trial court on this item of damages.