Charlie Stuart Oldsmobile, Inc. v. Smith
| Citation | 175 Ind.App. 1,369 N.E.2d 947 |
| Decision Date | 30 November 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 2-1274A289,2-1274A289 |
| Parties | CHARLIE STUART OLDSMOBILE, INC., Appellant (Defendant below), v. Willis R. SMITH, Appellee (Plaintiff below), and General Motors Corporation, Appellee (Defendant below). |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Indiana |
James W. Stilwell, Stilwell, Hackemeyer & Life, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Donald M. Ream, Jr., Indianapolis, for appellee.
The Petition for Rehearing of Charlie Stuart Oldsmobile, Inc. (Charlie Stuart) challenges our decision in Charlie Stuart Oldsmobile, Inc. v. Smith (1976), Ind.App., 357 N.E.2d 247, on the ground that the evidence of damage to Smith's car was conflicting and therefore we erred in holding the judgment of Five Thousand ($5,000.00) Dollars was severable.
Our re-examination of the record forces us to recant in part.
We have not altered our earlier position that the award of Five Thousand ($5,000.00) Dollars was beyond the scope of the evidence. Smith testified that because of Charlie Stuart's acts the total loss of value to his car was Four Thousand ($4,000.00) Dollars. No evidence was introduced that the damage to Smith's car exceeded Four Thousand ($4,000.00) Dollars. Therefore, some portion of the Five Thousand ($5,000.00) Dollar award must have been attributable to damages for mental distress which we held were not allowable.
However, we must disown our earlier statements that:
The only probative evidence of property damage was Smith's unrefuted testimony that this automobile had suffered a loss in value of Four Thousand ($4,000.00) Dollars. Charlie Stuart Oldsmobile, Inc. v. Smith, supra at 255
or that other than the Four Thousand ($4,000.00) Dollar figure:
There was no other evidence presented by either party as to the extent of damages sustained. Charlie Stuart Oldsmobile, Inc. v. Smith, supra at 250.
Smith's testimony regarding his efforts to trade his 1970 automobile for a 1971 automobile came in without objection. He stated that Dellen Oldsmobile was willing to take his 1970 Toronado and One Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty ($1,750.00) Dollars for a new 1971 Toronado, that Charlie Stuart Oldsmobile was willing to take his old car and Two Thousand Twenty-five ($2,025.00) Dollars for a 1971 Toronado and that he would have been willing to trade his 1970 for a 1971 and pay a cash difference of One Thousand ($1,000.00) Dollars.
Though it may be speculative or conjectural in nature, the evidence of trade-in value came in without objection. It is well established in Indiana that if evidence comes in without objection, we are not concerned with its competency:
A party who permits incompetent evidence on a material issue to be introduced without objection can not be heard to say on appeal that it should not be considered . . . . Its probative value, when so admitted, is for the court or jury to determine, notwithstanding such evidence might have been excluded if proper and timely objection had been made. Klingler v. Ottinger (1939), 216 Ind. 9, 17, 22 N.E.2d 805, 809.
Bohn Aluminum & Brass Co. v. Kinney (1974), Ind.App., 314 N.E.2d 780; Page v. Board of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moffett v. Gene B. Glick Co., Inc.
...Charlie Stuart Oldsmobile, Inc. v. Smith, 171 Ind.App. 315, 326, 357 N.E.2d 247, 253 (1976), modified on other grounds, 175 Ind.App. 1, 369 N.E.2d 947 (1977). Thus, no impact need be shown if (1) there is a tort which invades a legal right of the plaintiff; (2) which is likely to provoke an......
-
Payton v. Abbott Labs
...840, 606 P.2d 944 (1980); Charlie Stuart Oldsmobile, Inc. v. Smith, 171 Ind.App. 315, 357 N.E.2d 247 (1976), vacated in part, 369 N.E.2d 947 (Ind.App.1977); Clemm v. Atchison, T & S.F. Ry., 126 Kan. 181, 268 P. 103 (1928); Daley v. LaCroix, 384 Mich. 4, 12, 179 N.W.2d 390 (1970) ("definite ......
-
Rice v. Rent-A-Center of America, Inc.
...and assault, Charlie Stuart Oldsmobile v. Smith, 171 Ind.App. 315, 327, 357 N.E.2d 247, 254 (1976), modified on other grounds 175 Ind.App. 1, 369 N.E.2d 947 (1977), but Mr. Rice has not demonstrated that the actions of the defendant would fall within that Summary judgment for the defendant ......
-
OLIVER BY HINES v. McClung
...(citing Charlie Stuart Oldsmobile, Inc. v. Smith, 171 Ind. App. 315, 357 N.E.2d 247, 253 (1976), modified on other grounds, 175 Ind.App. 1, 369 N.E.2d 947 (1977)). Consequently, "no impact need be shown if (1) there is a tort which invades a legal right of the plaintiff; (2) which is likely......