Harris v. Peters
653 N.E.2d 1274, 210 Ill. Dec. 812, 274 Ill. App. 3d 206 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The measure of compensatory damages for the total destruction of personal property is its fair market value immediately prior to destruction. A tortfeasor is not liable for the injured party's separate contractual obligations related to the property that exceed its market value.
Facts:
- On October 8, 1988, Richard Harris entered into a lease agreement with U.B. Vehicle Leasing, Inc. (UB) for a 1988 Audi.
- On September 6, 1991, Scott Peters' vehicle collided with and totaled the Audi leased by Harris.
- Peters' insurer tendered a check to Harris for the fair market value of the Audi at the time of the collision.
- Harris endorsed the check and gave it to UB to apply toward his lease obligations.
- The fair market value payment was insufficient to cover the total amount Harris still owed UB under the terms of the lease agreement.
Procedural Posture:
- U.B. Vehicle Leasing, Inc. (UB) filed a complaint against Richard Harris in the circuit court, seeking $5,560.48 for the remaining balance on a vehicle lease.
- Harris filed a third-party complaint against Scott Peters (the third-party defendant), seeking judgment in an amount equivalent to any judgment UB might obtain against Harris.
- Peters filed a motion to dismiss the third-party complaint against him.
- The circuit court granted the motion and dismissed Harris's complaint against Peters with prejudice.
- Harris (appellant) appealed the circuit court's dismissal to the appellate court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the proper measure of compensatory damages for the total destruction of leased personal property include the lessee's remaining contractual lease obligations that exceed the property's fair market value at the time of destruction?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Tully
No. The proper measure of compensatory damages for destroyed property is its fair market value at the time of loss, which does not include additional, unrelated contractual debts. The purpose of compensatory damages is to make the injured party whole, not to provide a windfall or enrich their financial position. Harris was made whole when he received the car's fair market value, which is its cash equivalent. Before the accident, Harris possessed the car but also had a contractual obligation to pay UB an amount greater than the car's value—a 'negative net.' Forcing Peters to pay the remaining lease balance would unjustly enrich Harris by eliminating this pre-existing negative financial obligation. The court reasoned that this 'benefit of the bargain' Harris negotiated with UB was a loss that did not directly flow from the tort committed by Peters and is therefore not recoverable from him.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the traditional tort law principle that damages are measured by the value of the property lost, not by the victim's collateral contractual arrangements. It clearly distinguishes between direct losses proximately caused by the tort (the value of the car) and consequential economic losses arising from the plaintiff's own independent contracts (the remaining lease debt). This precedent limits the scope of a tortfeasor's liability, preventing them from being held responsible for a plaintiff's disadvantageous financial agreements. Future cases involving destroyed property under a lease or financing agreement will likely follow this rule, limiting recovery to the property's fair market value.
