I had a slip and fall accident in the elevator of an apartment complex in San Francisco, CA. The ground was wet. There were no signs or warnings about the hazardous condition.

The only damages I am seeking from the building’s insurance company are monetary: to cover the cost of replacement of my motorcycle helmet, which was damaged when I fell to the ground.

After speaking with the insurance representative, it appears he is conceding liability, but is insisting that recovery be limited by the benefit derived from the use of the helmet (i.e., $500 for a new helmet meant to last seven years minus the value of having used it for approx. two years = damages).

I disagree. I believe that damages should be assessed by determining the cost of replacement of the helmet ($500).

But what I believe is mostly irrelevant. What do you think should be the prevailing measure for damages in this case?

Thank you for you time.

Regards,
C.N.