Opinion ID: 2154496
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Jury Instructions Regarding Damages for Lost Property

Text: The trial court instructed the jury in standard fashion that it was Dr. Vossoughi's burden to prove his damages with reasonable certainty. [W]ith respect to valuation of property, the court elaborated, a plaintiff whose property has been destroyed or taken may recover its fair market value, defined as that price which a willing purchaser would be willing to pay to a willing seller for the property, without any compulsion on the part of either party to buy or sell the property just before it was lost. The jury could consider any circumstances and conditions which may have altered the value of the subject property. [7] The court further instructed the jury how to value property for which a fair market value cannot be determined or would be inadequate: If you find that the fair market value of the destroyed property cannot be determined or would be inadequate, such as when there is no demand for the property and no ability to sell it, or when the property was unique or possessed special qualities which could only be appreciated by its owner, you may consider the following factors in determining the actual value of the property. One, the age of the property; two, the degree to which the property was used by the owner; three, the condition of the property just before and after it was damaged; four, the uniqueness of the property; five, the reasonableness of recreating or creating the property; six, the cost of recreating or replacing the property; seven, the degree to which the property wore out with age; and, eight, the opinion of the owner as to its value. Counsel for Dr. Vossoughi and UDC expressed their satisfaction with these instructions.