marks omitted); see also Annotation, Recovery for Loss Of Use Of Motor Vehicle Damaged or Destroyed, 18 A.L.R.3rd 497 (1968) (hereinafter Annot., Recovery For Loss Of Use, 18 A.L.R.3rd 497). However, a “growing number of state and federal courts, ... have abandoned the traditional approach and have awarded damages for loss of use in cases of total destruction.” Damages in Tort, supra § 37.54[1], at 166-67; Guido v. Hudson Transit Lines, 178 F.2d 740 (3rd Cir.1950); Atlantic Aviation Corp. v. United States, 456 F.Supp. 121 (D.Del.1978); Reynolds v. Bank of America, 53 Cal.2d 49, 345 P.2d 926 (1959); New York Cent. R.R. Co. v. Churchill, 140 Ind.App. 426, 218 N.E.2d 372 (1966); Weishaar v. Canestrale, 241 Md. 676, 217 A.2d 525 (1966); Allanson, 81 A.D.2d 16, 439 N.Y.S.2d 545. The a 79) (<HOLDING>); Holmes v. Raffo, 60 Wash.2d 421, 374 P.2d 536
holding that damages in a fela action are limited strictly to the financial loss thus sustained overturning a jury award for the loss of society and companionship holding that provision barring recovery of consequential damages did not necessarily bar all loss of use damages but damages for loss of use of money were consequential holding no liability for the loss of eight days of work due to a train derailment holding that where the owner of a tractor knew immediately after the accident that the tractor was a total loss damages for loss of use were not recoverable beyond a reasonable time limited to 30 days notwithstanding the owners financial inability to replace the property for eight months holding that proof of loss is not evidence of extent of loss and insured is not precluded from showing his damages were greater than shown in proof of loss