Opinion ID: 1405799
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Hanset v. General Construction Company.

Text: Hanset is a 1979 department case and this court's most recent decision concerning the measure of damages for tortious injury to real property. The Barneses cited Hanset to the trial court and have been consistent in relying upon it in the Court of Appeals and this court. Hanset was an action to recover damages to the plaintiffs' home as a result of the defendants' blasting operations. When the plaintiffs purchased the house in 1973 for $5,000, it had been condemned  it was a shell without doors or windows. The plaintiffs did extensive work on the house which included repairing the walls and roof, leveling the floors, fixing the ceilings and paneling several rooms. The defendants' blasting commenced in July 1975. The plaintiffs' house was extensively damaged by the blasting. At trial, the plaintiffs introduced evidence that the cost of repair would be $12,000. They did not introduce any evidence of the value of the house before or after the blasting. The jury awarded the plaintiffs $5,000. The defendant appealed, claiming that the measure of damages should have been the diminution in the value of the house. The defendant in Hanset claimed that Ore. Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Mathis, supra , was authority to support its position. Instead of agreeing with the defendant, this court grabbed the reins and used the case to affirm the jury award and said: Instead, the case [ Ore. Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Mathis ] makes it clear that `since the allowance of damages is to award just compensation without enrichment, there is no universal test for determining the value of property injured or destroyed and    the mode and amount of proof must be adapted to the facts of each case.' 215 Or at 225 [334 P.2d 186].       We identified several factors that make repair cost, and not diminution in value, the proper measure of damages, including whether the property can be repaired; whether the damage is to an improvement as opposed to damage to the land itself; and whether the determination of the diminution in value would be difficult and uncertain. 215 Or at 226 [334 P.2d 186]. Under the facts of this case, these factors show that the proper measure of damages in this case is repair cost, not diminution in value. 285 Or. at 104, 589 P.2d 1117. This court held that the cost of repair was the proper measure of damages. In addition to its analysis of Ore. Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Mathis, supra , it quoted comment b to Restatement of Torts Section 929 (1939), and a portion of Berg v. Reaction Motors Div., 37 N.J. 396, 181 A.2d 487, 495 (1962).