Court Opinion

ID: 9602107
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:51:55.154647+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:00.825715
License: Public Domain

Judge Baley
dissenting.
I am concerned about the issue of damages and the application of the three-year statute of limitations to plaintiff’s cause of action.
As a part of the contract of sale defendants agreed to retain possession of the crane on their premises until plaintiff was ready to use it. In March 1967 plaintiff discovered that the crane was damaged and left it with defendants for repair. It was still in the possession of defendants and had not been repaired at the time of the trial in August of 1973 over six years later.
Plaintiff was permitted to recover $2,000.00 for the damage to the crane. He was also permitted to recover for loss of use, such loss being demonstrated by rental of another crane in October 1967 for $1,400.00, and in July 1968 for $4,500.00, and presumably this loss of use had continued to the time of trial. It is my view that plaintiff had a duty to mitigate his damages, Construction Co. v. Crain and Denbo, Inc., 256 N.C. 110, 123 S.E. 2d 590; Troitino v. Goodman, 225 N.C. 406, 35 S.E. 2d 277; Chesson v. Container Co., 215 N.C. 112, 1 S.E. 2d 357, and that such mitigation involved more than arranging to rent a substitute crane at heavy expense over an indeterminate period. He had an obligation to see that the crane was promptly repaired, and, if defendants were not making such repairs, it should have been removed from their premises and repaired by someone else. See Valencia v. Shell Oil Co., 23 Cal. 2d 840, 844, 147 P. 2d 558, 560 (1944); Rogers v. Nelson, 97 N.H. 72, 75, 80 A. 2d 391, 393 (1951); Holmes v. Raffo, 60 Wash. 2d 421, 430, 374 P. 2d 536, 541 (1962) (en banc); Dobbs, Remedies, § 5.11, at 385. The failure to make such duty clear to the jury is error.
In addition, there is no clear evidence of the time the damage to the crane occurred. Plaintiff purchased it on 26 January 1967 and saw it in good condition about a week or ten days later. This would have been between February 2 and February 5. About one month. later, March 2 or March 5, he saw the crane in damaged condition. This action was instituted on 16 *602February 1970. Defendant pleaded the three-year statute of limitations. Plaintiff has the burden of proving his action was brought within the statutory period. Parsons v. Gunter, 266 N.C. 731, 147 S.E. 2d 162; Bennett v. Trust Co., 265 N.C. 148, 143 S.E. 2d 312; Commercial Union Co. v. Electric Corp., 15 N.C. App. 406, 190 S.E. 2d 364. His evidence shows only that the breach occurred sometime between February 2 and March 5. Whether it occurred before or after February 16 is purely a matter of speculation.
It is my conviction that defendants are entitled to a new trial.