Alexander v. Al G. Barnes Amusement Co.

• Decision Date: 17 January 1919
• Docket Number: 14919.
• Citation: 105 Wash. 346,177 P. 786
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: ALEXANDER v. AL G. BARNES AMUSEMENT CO. et al.

177 P. 786

105 Wash. 346

ALEXANDER v. AL G. BARNES AMUSEMENT CO. et al.

No. 14919.

Supreme Court of Washington

January 17, 1919

Department 1.

Appeal from Superior Court, Pierce County; Ernest M. Card, Judge.

Action by H. F. Alexander against the Al G. Barnes Amusement Company and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Remanded, with instructions to enter judgment for plaintiff in reduced amount.

Ellis Lewis Garretson, of Tacoma, for appellants.

Grosscup & Morrow, of Tacoma, for respondent.

MITCHELL J.

On account of the negligence of appellants, respondent's automobile was damaged. The cause was tried without a jury. Findings, conclusions, and a judgment in the sum of $1,125 were made and entered in favor of the respondent.

At the trial appellants proceeded on the theory that the proper measure of damages is the reasonable cost of repairs, and over the objections of the respondent, introduced proof that the automobile could be repaired at a cost of $125, in such manner as to make it as good as new with respect to service and appearance. The proof showed an established market for secondhand automobiles. Therefore the proper rule as to the measure of damages in the case is the difference between the market value of the automobile just before the injury and immediately thereafter. 8 R. C. L. § 47, p. 487.

Other than the respondent, and simply because he owned the car who, over the objections of appellants, was permitted to testify as to the market values, there was only one witness who gave such testimony. This witness was called by respondent. For 10 years, at the time of trial, he had been in the automobile business, and for 3 1/2 years agent for the sale of this particular kind of car and was a dealer in secondhand cars in Tacoma, where the accident occurred. The testimony of this witness as to market values was somewhat uncertain. Being asked in direct examination as to the reasonable market value of the car before the accident, he answered, 'That car would have sold for between $2,700 and $3,000.' Questioned as to the market value after the accident, he said, 'Well, if we would have bought it we would not have paid over $1,500 or $1,600 for it.' Under cross-examination he testified:

'Q. And is your idea of what it was worth before the accident based upon what you as a dealer in secondhand cars would have been willing to pay for it? A. A dealer, probably he would not pay over $2,500 or $2,600 for it.'

Then on redirect examination he was asked, 'What would it sell for in the market after the accident?' to which he answered: 'Around $1,750 to $2,000.' Counsel for respondent say:

'The trial court saw the respondent's witnesses heard their testimony, and

...