 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Laughlin v. Fillers9/22/2005
ntiff argues that the "absolute minimum amount of damages that the jury could have awarded, given the only competent evidence on the subject . . ." was $11,500.
We disagree. The evidence in the record on appeal also shows that Plaintiff's wrecker was eight years old at the time of the accident, was wrecked and inoperable when Plaintiff purchased it seven years before the accident, had thirty-six thousand miles on it when Plaintiff purchased it, had a hundred and twenty-nine thousand miles on it at the time of the accident, had been rebuilt by Plaintiff once, and was being rebuilt again at the time of the accident.
In addition, Plaintiff's friend and expert, Mr. Byrd, admitted that he never drove Plaintiff's wrecker, got into it, looked under the hood, or inspected it. Mr. Byrd knew nothing about the tires on Plaintiff's wrecker at the time of the accident, was not aware that it had been wrecked and was inoperable when Plaintiff purchased it, and was not aware of how many miles the wrecker had on it at the time of the accident. Mr. Byrd admitted that his estimate was for a good 1989 Ford F350 four wheel drive with a good wrecker apparatus and not for the specific one that Plaintiff owned. He further admitted that the estimate he gave "was approximate. * Retail. That'd be a little high. * As a retail price."
Further, Plaintiff admitted that there was "probably very little" damage to the wrecker unit itself as a result of the accident and that an undamaged wrecker unit, like his, could be unbolted from the truck and set on to another truck chassis Mr. Byrd testified that the wrecker unit is worth more than the truck portion of the wrecker. Mr. Byrd testified that a wrecker unit similar to Plaintiff's in good operating condition would be worth ten thousand dollars and testified that Plaintiff's wrecker unit "was worth that." However, the testimony of Marcus Kyker, another friend of Plaintiff's, shows that he sold a wrecker similar to Plaintiff's in good condition several years after the accident for six thousand dollars.
Taking the strongest legitimate view of all the evidence in favor of the verdict, assuming the truth of all that tends to support it, allowing all reasonable inferences to sustain the verdict, and discarding all to the contrary, as we must, we find there was material evidence in the record for the jury to find that the damages to Plaintiff's wrecker totaled $3,500. The evidence shows that the most valuable portion of the wrecker, the wrecker unit itself, was undamaged and that this undamaged portion could be unbolted and set on to another truck chassis. The evidence further shows that Mr. Kyker sold a wrecker similar to Plaintiff's for six thousand dollars approximately three years after the accident. The evidence further shows that Plaintiff's wrecker was eight years old, had a hundred and twenty-nine thousand miles on it at the time of the accident, and had been wrecked, and rebuilt by Plaintiff once and that Plaintiff was in the process of rebuilding it again. There is material evidence in the record upon which the jury could have based its verdict that Plaintiff's wrecker was worth less than the estimate Mr. Byrd gave for a good 1989 Ford F350 four wheel drive with a good wrecker apparatus.
In this case, the jury's award of damages received the Trial Court's approval and, therefore, is entitled to "great weight" on appeal. Thrailkill, 879 S.W.2d at 840. As there is material evidence to support the jury's award of damages for the wrecker, and we find no abuse of the Trial Court's discretion in approving the award, we affirm the award of damages for the wrecker.
We next consider whether the Trial Court erred in refusing to gran
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.
|
|