 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Laughlin v. Fillers9/22/2005
Background
Plaintiff's wrecker consisted of two parts, a 1989 Ford four wheel drive one ton truck, and the wrecker apparatus. When asked to describe the components of the wrecker, Plaintiff stated: "Well, you've got the truck, and then you have a wrecker, but the wrecker part goes on the back with a boom and a wheel lift. You can lift cars up by the wheels, or you can lift them up underneath." Plaintiff testified: "[my wrecker] had all the specifications for a ton wrecker. Now, if you were going to try to haul like a great big truck, you can't haul it with it because the truck outweighs your wrecker." Plaintiff admitted that his wrecker was a short wheel base wrecker and that it could not haul an all-wheel-drive vehicle.
Plaintiff testified that his wrecker was " emolished" as a result of the accident. He further testified that at time of accident, he was paying off a loan on the truck portion of the wrecker. Plaintiff estimated that the value of his wrecker at the time of the accident was "twenty-four thousand or something." However, Plaintiff admitted that his wrecker was eight years old at the time of the accident and that it had been wrecked and was inoperable when he first purchased it. The evidence shows that Plaintiff purchased the wrecker at salvage for twelve thousand dollars some seven years before the accident. Plaintiff testified that his wrecker had thirty-six thousand miles on it when he purchased it, and that it had a hundred and twenty-nine thousand miles on it at the time of the accident. When asked if the tires were bald at the time of the accident, Plaintiff replied, "I say the tires were, you know, getting - - - some of them were ready to replace." Plaintiff also admitted that he didn't have a liner in the driver's door of the truck at the time of the accident and that the wrecker had been sanded, but was not painted at the time of the accident. When asked if his wrecker was not in good shape at the time of the accident, Plaintiff replied, "It was making me a living." Plaintiff stated:
I had restored it and painted it at one time, and then, you know, and was in the process of doing it again. I had overhauled the motor because I had problems with it, and I had rebuilt the motor about, I don't know, about fifteen thousand miles back or so, something like that. I don't really know how many miles it had on it when I rebuilt it.
Plaintiff testified that the wrecker unit sits on the chassis of the truck and admitted that there was "probably very little" damage to the wrecker unit itself as a result of the accident. Plaintiff testified that an undamaged wrecker unit, like his, could be unbolted from the truck and set on another truck chassis. Plaintiff testified that he did not unbolt his wrecker unit and place it on another truck because he didn't have the money to buy a truck on which to put the wrecker unit.
J.D. Byrd, a retired wrecker salesman, testified as an expert witness for Plaintiff. Mr. Byrd testified that part of his job responsibilities when selling wreckers was to assess the value of wreckers on a regular basis. Mr. Byrd testified that he saw Plaintiff's wrecker prior to the accident and opined it was in good condition. Mr. Byrd opined that the value of Plaintiff's wrecker prior to the accident was approximately twenty-two thousand dollars.
When questioned further, Mr. Byrd admitted that he and Plaintiff have been friends since the early 1960's. Mr. Byrd further admitted that although he saw Plaintiff's wrecker driving "on the road several times," he never drove it, got into it, looked under the hood, or inspected it. Mr. Byrd admitted he knew nothing about the tires on Plaintiff's wrecker at the time o
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|