Fnu Muhtashim
Texas Judiciary Assignment
Andrew Teas
10-15-2016
J & D Towing is a vehicle towing company in Huntsville, Texas, and in 2011 it owned just one wrecker which on December 29 2011 was involved in an accident with a third party and it was undisputed that the third party was at fault. The wrecker was deemed to be an unrepairable total loss. Thus its only source of income was down and forced to close business until they could obtain a new wrecker. For J & D to obtain a new wrecker they had to receive compensation from third party’s insurance company. The third party delayed compensation by over two months due to dispute over the value of the wrecker but on February 29, 2012, the insurance company paid them $25,000 policy limits. Although …show more content…
it begins with first principles, compensation is the chief purpose of damages award in delict cases. Further explanation is for the single reason that proper compensation is for the injury inflicted as a causation of the wrongful act done. Reasonable compensation must be neither too little nor too much, but sufficient to place the plaintiff in the position which he/she would have been before the defendant’s wrongful acts. Thus acts as a corrective justice, to put back the plaintiff at their rightful position (Willet, 2016).
To add actual damages may be direct or consequential. Thus in this case loss-of-use damages are consequential from the wrongful acts committed, and result from a reasonable period of lost use of the personal property. Texas law is clear on partial damage of property but less clear on total destruction. But despite lack of guidance some Texas courts of appeals have held that loss of damages are unavailable in total destruction cases, but other courts of appeals have seriously questioned the validity of the rule (Willet, …show more content…
Since the mid-20th century however, there has been a sea change in both case law and legal treaties on the availability of loss-of-use damages in total destruction cases. The result is a clear consensus that loss-of-use damages are available in total destruction. Arguments made by several courts are any distinction between partially destroyed property and totally destroyed property for purpose of loss-of-use damages is unpersuasive reason being loss-of-use damages incurred in a totally destroyed and partially destroyed are the same. The second argument is that loss of use damages must be available in total destruction cases pursuant to the principle of full and fair compensation (Willet,