What is the test for damages in a motor vehicle accident?

This unusual case for damages presents many problems. Was the course taken caused by the plaintiff within the special circumstance rule in Hadley v. Baxendale (1854), 9 Exch. 341, 156 E.R. 145? Was the defendant’s course, as a matter of fact, reasonable in all the circumstances? Does it matter that what is asked is not “a loss of profit”, a “usual” expense, an “expense” of rectification (as opposed to a complete re-doing of a somewhat different thing)? Is the defendant receiving, at the plaintiff’s expense, an extra benefit? Has the defendant so framed and proved its claim for damages as to obtain double compensation? The difficulties presented by these complications are compounded by the gaps and omissions in evidence which deprive the court of any real opportunity to compare, in result, the final position of the parties. I answer these questions, subject to the paragraph next following, in the defendant’s favour,