State v. De Verteuil

"Hall 'subsequently limited the reasoning in Barber . . . to personal effects, such as household furniture' and Barber’s reasoning is 'limited to situations where fair market value is not equivalent to just compensation for the loss incurred.'" Hayes Oyster Co., 170 Or App at 227-28.

Defendant appealed a supplemental judgment of restitution entered after he was convicted of a DUII under ORS 813.010 and fourth-degree assault under ORS 163.106. Defendant assigned error to the trial court mandating that Defendant pay restitution for the full retail value of the victim’s car seat and roof rack, which were both damaged as a result of Defendant’s conduct. Because the damaged items had significant use, Defendant argued that the trial court erred in their decision mandating Defendant to pay the full retail value, rather than the market value of the damaged items. “[W]here property is destroyed, the measure of damages is generally the market value of the property.” PGE v. Taber, 146 Or. App. 735, 739, 934 P.2d 538, rev den, 325 OR. 438 (1997). However, when the case involves damaged “household goods and furniture owned and kept for personal use,” the owner may recover the full value. Barber v. Motor Investment Co., 136 Or. 361, 365, 298 P. 216 (1931). The Court held that a car seat and a roof rack are not considered “household goods” under Barber, and, therefore, just compensation could be afforded by just the market value of the goods. Vacated that portion of the restitution award and remanded for resentencing, otherwise affirmed.