<p style="text-align: center;"><strong><u>JUDGEMENT</u></strong></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>LASSEY J.A.</strong></p><p style="text-align: justify;">For my part, I do not think there can be any sound reason which should entitle this court to interfere with the trial judge&#x27;s view that the respondent acted reasonably in hiring the caterpillar as a replacement vehicle to mitigate the damage or loss he suffered by being deprived of the use of his own equipment in his timber business. The question as to the reasonableness or unreasonableness of the steps taken in hiring a caterpillar to do the job of timber felling which, but for the appellants&#x27; wrongful act, would have been done by the respondent&#x27;s own equipment is one of fact which had been answered in the respondent&#x27;s favour by the trial judge, and the appellate court is bound to accept that answer as final. The learned trial judge found that it was a reasonable act in the particular circumstances for the respondent to have hired the caterpillar to the effect that the respondent tried unsuccessfully to procure similar trucks or other vehicles of the same prestige…</p>