Damages awarded to compensate a plaintiff for the inability to use property during the period it remains unavailable because of harm caused by the defendant's conduct.
See Our Sources
How its tested
Common Examples
5
Truck Repair Period
Levi Lowe's delivery truck is struck by a negligent motorist and requires three weeks of repairs. During that time Levi cannot fulfill customer contracts that depend on the vehicle. The court awards him damages measured by the reasonable rental value of a substitute truck for the repair interval.
Destroyed Equipment
Lorenzo Lugo's specialized printing press is totally destroyed in a warehouse fire caused by the defendant's negligence. Lorenzo immediately orders a replacement that arrives six weeks later. The court permits recovery of loss-of-use damages for the reasonable replacement period even though the press itself is gone.
Liam Larson's grazing pasture is flooded by a neighbor's broken irrigation pipe for four weeks. The cattle must be moved to rented land at extra cost. The court awards damages that include the loss of use of the pasture itself measured by its fair rental value during the flooding.
Evacuated Airline Terminal
A chemical release forces the temporary shutdown of an airport terminal used by People Express Airlines. The airline incurs added costs and lost flight revenue while its gates remain closed. The court allows recovery of those economic losses because the airline's operations were directly and foreseeably impaired by the defendant's conduct.
People Express Airlines, Inc. v. Consolidated Rail Corp.(1985) 100 N.J. 246 [495 A.2d 107]
On July 22, 1981, a fire began in the Port Newark freight yard of defendant Consolidated Rail Corporation when ethylene oxide manufactured by defendant BASF Wyandotte Company escaped from a tank car owned by defendant Union Tank Car Company and leased to BASF. The tank car was punctured during a coupling operation with another rail car and ignited.
The municipal authorities evacuated the area within a one-mile radius surrounding the fire, which included the North Terminal building of Newark International Airport where plaintiff People Express Airlines’ business operations are based. People Express employees were prohibited from using the North Terminal for twelve hours, although the feared explosion never occurred.
The plaintiff contends that it suffered business-interruption losses as a result of the evacuation. These losses consisted of cancelled scheduled flights and lost reservations because employees were unable to answer the telephones to accept bookings. Fixed operating expenses allocable to the evacuation period were incurred and paid despite the offices being closed. No physical damage to airline property and no personal injury occurred.
According to the original complaint, each defendant acted negligently and these acts proximately caused the plaintiff’s harm. An amended complaint alleged additional counts of nuisance and strict liability. Conrail moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted the motion on the ground that absent property damage or personal injury economic loss was not recoverable in tort. The trial court also granted summary judgment motions by BASF and Union Car on the same reasoning. The Appellate Division reversed the trial court’s order granting summary judgment and remanded the cause to the trial court. This Court granted defendant Union Car’s petition for certification, in which Conrail and BASF joined.
Plaintiff asserted at oral argument that at least some of the defendants were aware from prior experiences that ethylene oxide is a highly volatile substance. Further, emergency response plans in case of an accident had been prepared. When the fire occurred that gave rise to this lawsuit, some of the defendants’ consultants helped determine how much of the surrounding area to evacuate.
A ship under time charter to Flint is delayed in dry dock because of the repair company's negligence. Flint loses the use of the vessel for profitable voyages during the delay. The court denies recovery because Flint holds no property interest in the ship and therefore cannot claim loss-of-use damages from the repairer.
Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. Flint275 U.S. 303
The respondents, time charterers of the steamship Bjornefjord, filed a libel against Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co. to recover for the loss of use of the steamer between August 1 and August 15, 1917.
By the terms of the charter party the steamer was to be docked at least once in every six months. Payment of the hire was to be suspended until she was again in proper state for service. In accordance with these terms the vessel was delivered to the petitioner and docked. While there the propeller was so injured by the petitioner’s negligence that a new one had to be put in, thus causing the delay for which this suit is brought.
The petitioner seems to have had no notice of the charter party until the delay had begun. On August 10, 1917, it was formally advised by the respondents that they should hold it liable. It settled with the owners on December 7, 1917, and received a release of all their claims.
The present libel in a cause of contract and damage seems to have been brought in reliance upon an allegation. The allegation stated that the contract for dry docking between the petitioner and the owners was made for the benefit of the libellants and was incidental to the aforesaid charter party. The District Court allowed recovery on the ground that the respondents had a property right in the vessel. It is not argued that there was a demise. The owners remained in possession. The libellants recovered in both Courts below. A writ of certiorari was granted by this Court.
Are loss of use damages available when property is totally destroyed?
Most modern courts permit recovery for the reasonable time needed to replace destroyed property. The older rule that barred such damages has been abandoned in the majority of jurisdictions.
How is the amount of loss of use damages usually measured?
Courts commonly use the reasonable rental value of a substitute chattel or the fair rental value of land for the period of deprivation. Plaintiffs must show they would have used the property or incurred substitute costs.
Does continued partial use of damaged premises eliminate loss of use recovery?
No. When only part of the premises remains usable, damages are measured by the reduction in fair rental value rather than by total loss. The tenant may still recover for the unusable portion.
Supporting sources
Can a tenant escrow rent to reflect loss of use caused by a landlord's breach?
Yes. After proper notice a tenant may place in escrow only the abated portion of rent that corresponds to the loss of use. Escrowing the full rent is improper when the tenant retains substantial beneficial use of the premises.
Supporting sources
100 N.J. 246, 495 A.2d 107 (1985)
…453 F. 2d 1202 (5th Cir.1972) (defendant who negligently interfered with construction contract was liable for liquidated damages paid to subcontractor, though court said subcontractor could not have recovered if he had sued in his own right); Dominion Tape of Canada Ltd. v. L.R. McDonald & Sons, Ltd. , 3 Ont. 627…