Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California

One normally does not just accidentally scratch someone else's car with therir car keys. So it is understandable the other car owner is hostile to you. They are entitled to collect the full cost of repair whether or not they have the repair made. You are not required to pay, even though you clearly are at fault, until they get a judgment, which may have a negative effect on your credit rating. It is reasonable to demand to see a repair estimate [actually to see 2-3] before paying, but $600 does not sound bad since body shops will probably repaint the entire panel and then have to match it with the rest of the car [including the effects of age on the paint].

Does it make sense to lose a day form work to go to court over $300? No.

I agree with much of what Mr. Shers says, except I'm not so sure I'd conclude that you did it intentionally.

Whether you did it accidentally or intentionally might affect the appropriate measure of damages in court. There are two competing theories: diminution in value, and cost to repair. Usually, I think, a court will award damages based on the change in market value to the damaged property. Where the damage is of a kind that has little impact on the value of the property, but is very expensive to repair, this is an important legal policy for the defendant because he won't have to pay for a $5,000 repair for something no buyer will care much about and thus only reduces the value by $500. However, if the damage was done deliberately, the court has the alternative of requiring the defendant to pay for repairs to original condition, and if the judge is upset enough by the defendant's conduct, may very well require defendant to pay the full tab.

If, however, the victim/plaintiff is not making a firm election to make repairs, I think that undermines the applicability of the cost-to-repair theory of damages, and makes the question of what you owe more one of the effect on value. How much less is the car worth with scratches on it?

Finally, there is no requirement to get money damages from a defendant, or insurance proceeds from an insurer, that the money actually be used to repair or replace the damaged property. If a hurricane wipes out a railroad's line from A to B, it is not required to use the insurance money to replace the track. It can abandon the line instead. Similarly, the party whose car you scratched can pocket the damages and use the money to bet at the races if she so chooses. The cost to do the repairs remains important because that is the measure of damages (under one theory), and it will be necessary to get estimates for use as evidence in court as to what the cost of repairs will be IF the owner decides to do that.

Since the diminution-of-value theory of damages may be more appropriate than the cost-to-repair approach, it may be even more important to get market-value evidence - i.e., have an estimate made of the value of an unscratched vs. a scratched car.

I hope this isn't too much legal-theory BS, but this is an attempt to explain what a court will take into consideration. Personally, I'd do whatever's necessary to get a settlement out of court.