Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
DKB Trucking Company, LLC v. JNJ Express, Inc.
Citation: Not availableDocket: M2012-00008-COA-R3-CV
Court: Court of Appeals of Tennessee; September 5, 2012; Tennessee; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Plaintiff DKB Trucking Company, LLC sued JNJ Express, Inc. for damages after a collision on February 28, 2008, in which DKB's tractor and trailer were completely destroyed. DKB claimed $45,000 for the value of the destroyed property and sought additional damages for loss of use and lost profits, estimating average weekly earnings of $3,700 from the truck. The jury found JNJ liable for the destruction, awarding DKB $45,000 for the vehicle's fair market value and $44,000 for loss of use/lost profits. However, the trial court granted JNJ's motion for a directed verdict, ruling that DKB could not recover damages for loss of use or lost profits, as the property was destroyed and not unique. DKB appealed this decision. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s ruling, emphasizing its authority to review legal questions de novo, thus allowing for potential recovery of loss of use and lost profits. The trial court ruled that DKB could not recover damages for loss of use or lost profits due to the destruction of personal property, determining that damages should be assessed based on the fair market value at the time of loss. The court cited Tennessee law, indicating that lost profits are generally not recoverable when property is completely destroyed and unrepairable, as established in Tire Shredders, Inc. v. ERM-North Cent. Inc. However, an exception exists if the property has been negligently destroyed and cannot be replaced within a reasonable period. JNJ argued that the destroyed tractor was a conventional model that could be easily replaced, referencing testimony that similar tractors were available for purchase. The court clarified that the focus in Tire Shredders was not on the uniqueness of the property but on the time required for replacement. DKB contended that the regulations for hazardous waste hauling extended the replacement time, emphasizing that simply purchasing a new tractor does not complete the replacement process until it meets federal and state requirements. With unchallenged testimony suggesting a three-month replacement period, the court concluded that DKB could recover for loss of use and lost profits during this timeframe. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's directed verdict, reinstated the jury's judgment, and assigned the appeal costs to JNJ Express, Inc.