Ah, the smell of fine leather, the guttural growl of 490 Italian horses and the wind in your hair: there really is nothing like owning a Ferrari!

How do you put a price-tag on “pure pleasure,” zero to 60-plus in four seconds?

Well, Vancouver clinical psychologist Lawrence Miller, described as “a passionate Ferrari enthusiast,” figured losing that “great joy” for seven months was worth $85,000.

Brian Ross Motorsports Corp., which does business as Ferrari Maserati and whose repairman damaged the expensive man toy, thought more like $5,000.

In what is a cautionary tale for luxury automobile owners, Miller took his 2005 Ferrari F430 F1 in for annual servicing at the Vancouver dealership in May 2013. He wouldn’t be able to take it for a ride again for a year.

During a quality-control road test, the Ferrari-certified technician “made contact” in a laneway with a parked delivery truck. The company’s general manager told Miller his pride and joy, worth about $200,000 new, had sustained “a scratch” and the firm was arranging to have it repaired.

As he was out of town, Miller told the dealer not to perform any work until he had seen the damage.

When he did, he was “shocked.”

“The Ferrari was damaged down the length of the passenger side, including damage to the rims and the passenger side mirrors,” said B.C. Supreme Court Justice Jane Dardi in a ruling released Monday.

“As it turns out, the cost of the repairs was $35,644.04.”

Through what the judge called “an unfortunate series of circumstances” the car wasn’t returned from Brian Ross to Miller until December 2013. It still had not been repaired and it would take until May 9, 2014 before it was fixed to Miller’s satisfaction.

He sued for the repair costs, the loss of value to the luxury asset and the loss of his enjoyment driving a “work of art.”

The essential facts and liability were never at issue, and the two parties settled the question of depreciation and the cost of repairs before a three-day trial.

But they couldn’t decide how much losing that Ferrari feeling was worth.

The court heard evidence the daily rate for renting a similar car was $1,250, or a monthly rate of $9,381.

Miller calculated his one year’s loss at $112,572, but “all factors being considered,” said an appropriate award would be $85,000. He emphasized he was deprived of the experience of driving the vehicle through the summer of 2013.

The justice noted driving the Ferrari was Miller’s preferred pastime from which he derived “his peace of mind; the activity constitutes a form of stress relief for him. (And) renting a vehicle would be no substitute for the very special ‘pride of ownership’ of the Ferrari.”

The firm, though, pointed out Miller bought the largely handmade sports car for $134,288 in November, 2011, that $85,000 was two-thirds of the purchase price.

Dardi noted that although Miller was without the car for roughly a year, he was responsible for some of the delay.

A single man with no children who owns several vehicles, Miller had a 2002 Acura he used for meeting clients around the Lower Mainland and maintained he drove the Ferrari for “pure pleasure.”

He took the F430 out for a spin all year round but not in the rain — perhaps 20 days a month, and less frequently in the winter.

As a result, Dardi calculated his loss at only $15,000, never mind the excitement of that Formula One-derived sequential gearbox that cuts shift times down to 150 milliseconds.

She said the rental rates had not been helpful and she was hampered in determining damages because the legal principles around assessing loss of use are undeveloped.

(The decision is available on the court website at bit.ly/1IUnSrS)

imulgrew@vancouversun.com