What is the test for determining the appropriate measure of damages for damage caused to a property by a motor vehicle accident?

Plaintiff is correct that Mozzetti v. City of Brisbane (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 565 recognized "there is no fixed, inflexible rule for determining the measure of damages for injury to, or destruction of, property, and whatever formula is most appropriate in the particular case will be adopted . . . ." (Id. at p. 576.) But Mozzetti also held that "[i]n a case involving damage to plaintiff's property due to defendant's negligence, the general rule is that if the cost of repairing the injury and restoring the premises to their original condition amounts to less than the diminution in value of the property, such cost is the proper measure of damages; and if the cost of restoration will exceed such diminution in value, then the diminution in value of the property is the proper measure. [Citations.]" (Ibid., italics omitted.) Mozzetti concluded the trial court had prejudicially erred in instructing the jury in a manner that allowed it to award both cost of repair and the diminution value of the property because that permitted a cumulative or double recovery in contravention of the general rule. (Id. at pp. 577-578.)