Adams Refrigerated Exp., Inc. v. Ingol

• Decision Date: 03 October 1985
• Docket Number: No. 70920,70920
• Citation: Adams Refrigerated Exp., Inc. v. Ingol, 336 S.E.2d 289, 176 Ga.App. 457 (Ga. App. 1985)
• Parties: ADAMS REFRIGERATED EXPRESS, INC. v. INGOL.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 289

336 S.E.2d 289

176 Ga.App. 457

ADAMS REFRIGERATED EXPRESS, INC. v. INGOL.

No. 70920.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Oct. 3, 1985.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 17, 1985.

Certiorari Denied Nov. 20, 1985.

Irwin W. Stolz, Jr., Seaton D. Purdom, Atlanta, for appellant.

Lillian L. Neal, Joseph R. Baker, Jonesboro, for appellee.

DEEN, Presiding Judge.

On September 14, 1981, the appellee, Gerald Ingol, as an owner/operator of a tractor truck, entered an agreement with the appellant, Adams Refrigerated Express, Inc. (Adams), as an interstate motor carrier for hire. under that agreement, Ingol contracted to haul freight for Adams. In late September 1981, as Ingol was transporting a load through Alabama, Ingol's truck broke down; under circumstances now disputed by the parties, the truck was towed to Adams' premises in Atlanta, Georgia, where allegedly over $8,100 in repairs on the truck's engine were undertaken by Adams.

Adams refused to relinquish Ingol's truck until Ingol paid the repair costs. Ingol consequently commenced this action in trover against Adams, electing at trial, at the close of the evidence, to pursue a verdict for return of the truck and its hire. From the jury's return of a verdict for Ingol, awarding him the truck and $130,000 for its hire, and the trial court's subsequent denial of Adams' motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for new trial, this appeal followed.

Held:

1. Adams contends that the trial court erred either in not granting a new trial or in denying his motions for directed verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, on the grounds that there was no evidence of the market and rental values of the truck.

"Ordinarily, a jury is authorized to make a finding as to market value based on the purchase price, the recentness of the purchase, the care given between the purchase and the loss, etc. [Cit.]; however, such principle applies only where there has been no more than ordinary or average wear and tear on the automobile. Purchase price standing alone is not sufficient to establish market value. Collins & Glennville R. Co. v. Beasley, 36 Ga.App. 241, 243 (136 SE 167)." National Auto. Ins. Co. v. Vaughn, 98 Ga.App. 446, 447, 106 S.E.2d 87 (1958); Hayes v. Flaum, 138 Ga.App. 787, 227 S.E.2d 512 (1976). In the instant case, the only evidence of the market value of Ingol's truck was his testimony about the purchase price of $19,000 some fourteen months before the breakdown, and the purchase price of several accessory items he bought for the truck. This evidence probably did not constitute a sufficient basis for a jury to determine the market value of the truck at the time of the alleged conversion or afterwards. However, this evidentiary deficit became moot by Ingol's election to seek a verdict for the return of the truck along with the value of its hire, pursuant to OCGA § 44-12-151 (3). See also Wilson-Weesner-Wilkinson Co. v. Collier, 62 Ga.App. 457(2), 8 S.E.2d 171 (1940).

All of the evidence of the value of the hire of the truck adduced in this case actually focused on the generation of revenue by use of the truck. In addition to Ingol's testimony about his average net revenue from hauling freight with the truck, the former president of Adams indicated that an owner/operator such as Ingol could gross from $1,900 to $3,500 per week. There was no evidence of...