Opinion ID: 1318239
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Amount of Damages

Text: There also remains a factual dispute as to the amount of any damages to which McDonald is entitled. Thus the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to McDonald for full rental value and full repair costs. [7] First, the evidence presented showed that McDonald had relet the crane after it was repaired, but before the end of McGee's three month rental period. These rental payments must offset the total amount of damages. See Alaska Children's Services v. Smart, 677 P.2d 899, 902 (Alaska 1984). If McDonald mitigated its damages, it cannot have a double recovery. Second, the superior court awarded McDonald nearly the full cost of repairing the crane. [8] McGee argues that even if he is liable for repair costs because he was negligent, questions remain as to an appropriate amount. Evidence presented showed that certain parts of the crane could have been repaired, rather than replaced, and that repairs could have been made at a lower cost. The conflicting evidence regarding responsibility for the repair costs and the reasonableness of the claimed cost preclude summary judgment.