Miller v. Brian Ross Motorsports Corp.

Miller v. Brian Ross Motorsports Corp.

The Court held that damages for loss of use are compensatory and rental value is only a benchmark; the trial judge did not err in principle in considering the likely extent of use and available evidence, the advertised rental evidence was unreliable, and the $15,000 award (about $1,700 per month over nine months) was reasonable and fair under the circumstances.

Citation
2017 BCCA 166
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff: Dr. Lawrence Miller; Appellant / Plaintiff: Dr. Lawrence Miller Professional Psychology Corporation; Respondent / Defendant: Brian Ross Motorsports Corp. d.b.a. Ferrari Maserati of Vancouver
Court
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 April 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Negligence Appeal (loss of Use of Chattel) / Appeal From Supreme Court of British Columbia (assessment of Damages)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Loss of Use, Assessment of Damages, Wrongful Detention of Goods, Rental Value Benchmark, Mitigation
Source Language
English
Tort Civil Procedure Damages Loss of Use Assessment of Damages Wrongful Detention of Goods Rental Value Benchmark Mitigation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr. Lawrence Miller

Appellant / Plaintiff

Dr. Lawrence Miller Professional Psychology Corporation

Appellant / Plaintiff

Brian Ross Motorsports Corp. d.b.a. Ferrari Maserati of Vancouver

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Negligence Appeal (loss of Use of Chattel) / Appeal From Supreme Court of British Columbia (assessment of Damages)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the proper measure of damages for loss of use of a non‑profit‑making chattel?
  2. 2 What weight should be given to advertised or claimed rental rates when assessing loss of use?
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff's availability of alternative vehicles is relevant to an award for loss of use of a pleasure vehicle

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that damages for loss of use are compensatory and rental value is only a benchmark; the trial judge did not err in principle in considering the likely extent of use and available evidence, the advertised rental evidence was unreliable, and the $15,000 award (about $1,700 per month over nine months) was reasonable and fair under the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Loss‑of‑use award of $15,000 affirmed