Eves v Viscount [2001] JRC 106 (16 May 2001)
The Court found on balance that the two pictures existed and were present in the garage at the time of eviction, that the Viscount owed a duty of care and was liable for their loss, but that the Plaintiff failed to prove the high value claimed; the pictures were found to be glazed prints of nominal value, not valuable paintings.
- Citation
- [2001] JRC 106
- Parties
- Plaintiff: David Eves; Defendant: The Viscount
- Jurisdiction
- Jersey
- Judgment Date
- 16 May 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Judgment After Trial
- Outcome
- Claim allowed in part; damages awarded for nominal value only.
- Legal Topics
- Eviction, Negligence, Loss of Property, Damages, Duty of Care
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
David Eves
Plaintiff
The Viscount
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Trial
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Viscount is liable in damages for the loss of two pictures and other items during eviction.
- 2 Whether the two pictures existed and were present at the premises at the time of eviction.
- 3 What is the proper measure of damages for the lost items.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court found on balance that the two pictures existed and were present in the garage at the time of eviction, that the Viscount owed a duty of care and was liable for their loss, but that the Plaintiff failed to prove the high value claimed; the pictures were found to be glazed prints of nominal value, not valuable paintings.
Court Disposition
Claim allowed in part; damages awarded for nominal value only.
Orders
- The Viscount is liable to pay the Plaintiff the market value of the two prints and other listed items, assessed at nominal value.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment