To recover damages for loss of use, the Plaintiff must prove the reasonable cost to rent a similar item for the
amount of time reasonably necessary to repair or replace the item
The owner’s recovery for being deprived of the use of a damaged vehicle is generally to be determined with reference to the period of time reasonably required for the making of repairs.
In Reynolds v. Bank of America, cases in which the property is totally destroyed and those in which it has been injured but is repairable aren’t distinct, and it was concluded that when the owner of a negligently destroyed commercial vehicle has suffered injury by being deprived of the use of the vehicle during the period required for replacement, he is entitled, upon proper pleading and proof, to recover for loss of use in order to compensate for all the detriment proximately caused by the wrongful destruction.
A simple example, assume that an automobile is stolen from its owner. The value of the
‘loss of use’ of the car is the rental value of a substitute vehicle; the value of the ‘loss’ of the car is its replacement cost. The nature of ‘loss of use’ damages is described in California jurisprudence Third as: ‘The measure of damages for the loss of use of personal property may be determined with reference to the rental value of similar property which the plaintiff can hire for use during the period when he is deprived of the use of his own property. that’s how loss of use of property is different from loss of property.