What is the error of consequence in assessing damages in a motor vehicle accident case?

The error of consequence is that when it came to the assessment of damages, the trial judge required proof on the balance of probabilities that the appellant would take a specific action in the future, that is, replace its existing building and facilities on other property, rather than by making, in the words of Lord Diplock in Mallett v. McMonagle, supra, quoted above, "an estimate as to what are the chances that a particular thing ... would have happened and reflect those chances, whether they are more or less than even, in the amount of damages which it awards".