James M. Lee


Under the "loss of use" doctrine, unlike under common law, a plaintiffs right to compensation for their loss of use of chattel for the duration between the time of damage and when a substitute can be attained, is recognized. This Note traces the evolution of this progression, the problems it poses for courts, and analyzes the underlying reasons for this trend. It discusses a split between the Second and Third Department of the New York Courts on whether such compensation should be given in instances when the plaintiff had their own substitute item, e.g. a replacement vehicle after an auto accident, and was thus not required to, and in fact did not, have any out-of-pocket expense in procuring their replacement. Ultimately, this Note concludes that under the land use doctrine a court should not refrain from awarding damages to a plaintiff who has their own replacement available and urges for uniformity on this issue in the New York Courts.

Included in

Torts Commons



To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.