Opinion
C.A. No. 98C-06-039-JOH.
Decided: October 11, 2000.
Counsel:
Defendant has filed a motion in limine, to which the plaintiff has responded, concerning the appropriate measure of damages in this case revolving around the plaintiffs Corvette. Plaintiff argues that the correct measure of damages is the cost of repair. That, however, is not the law in Delaware, and has not been for some time. I refer counsel to Teitsworth v. Kempski, Del.Supr., 127 A.2d 237 (1956); Alber v. Wise, Del.Supr., 166 A.2d 141 (1960); Storey v. Castner, Del.Supr., 314 A.2d 187 (1973) and see Nardo v. Jim Baxter's Delaware Tire Center, Inc., Del.Super., C.A. No. 90C-10-034, Steele, J. (November 18, 1991). As stated in Teitsworth, "[t]he accepted method of proving damage to an automobile is by showing its value before and after the accident."
Teitsworth, 127 A.2d at 240.
There is more, however. Some of the above cases, namely Alber, indicate that it is appropriate, as part of the proof of diminution of value to introduce the cost of repairs, but that is to be incidental to the jury's determination of the value of the Corvette in this case. Further, diminution of value is testimony which must come from experts.
Insomuch as the defendant seeks a ruling that the appropriate measure of damages in this case is the diminution in value, if any, of plaintiffs Corvette as a result of this accident, the motion is granted. Insomuch as the defendant seeks to exclude, as relevant evidence, the cost of repairs, the motion is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.