Head of claim omitted in negligence case?

THE EDITOR: The article “WASA guilty of negligence” (Newsday, March 22), on damages in a negligence case, left me wondering if a significant head of claim was omitted in the legal proceedings.

According to the article, there were three heads of claim. Firstly, special damages for the cost of replacing a destroyed house and payment to professionals for their inputs.

Secondly, there was general damages for breach of statutory duty to repair the leaking water main that caused the destruction of the house.

Finally, there was damages for nuisance.

Damages should have been claimed for losses incurred by the property owner as costs of alternative accommodation and removal.

These costs are distinct from the special damages for rebuilding and professional fees and damages for breach of statutory duty and nuisance.

Logically and by any rules for assessing damages in this or similar jurisdictions, costs of alternative accommodation and removal are claimable losses. Omitting them leaves the property owner undercompensated.

There is a very obvious, strong and direct causal connection between the negligence of WASA that destroyed the house and the need of the property owner to acquire alternative accommodation and incur removal expenses.

Also, there was nothing the property owner could have done to mitigate her losses. In fact, the property owner went from pillar to post in futile efforts to get the leaking mains repaired.

The judgment, when published, may inform us whether the losses due the costs of alternative accommodation and removal were considered and if so how they were dealt with.

RAY PIERRE

Diego Martin