Cortez v. Mascarro
| Decision Date | 15 February 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 14561,14561 |
| Parties | Rosa G. CORTEZ, a Feme Sole, Appellant, v. Miguel MASCARRO, Appellee. . San Antonio |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Henry Beltran, San Antonio, for appellant .
Michael Rizik, Phillip Palmer, San Antonio, for appellee.
This is a suit a recover for damages to an automobile resulting from a collision involving the vehicles of plaintiff, Miguel Mascarro, and defendant, Rosa G. Cortez. Defendant appeals from a judgment in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $496.54.
The sole point urged by defendant is that there is no evidence concerning the difference in market value of plaintiff's automobile before and after the collision. The only testimony on the question of value came from plaintiff who, after stating that he was familiar with the value of his 1961 Ford automobile, said that its value immediately before the collision was $1,000.00, while its value immediately after the accident was $500.00. Defendant did not cross-examine plaintiff, and her complaint is based on the fact that plaintiff testified, during the course of direct examination, that his knowledge was based entirely on information gained by reading the newspapers and from talking to his friends who had purchased cars.
The general rule is that anyone familiar with the value of the thing in question is competent to give his opinion as to value. In the absence of a request for voir dire examination, the competency of the witness is established by his statement that he knows the value of the article in question. 2 McCormick, Texas Law of Evidence, § 1422, p. 260 (1956). The strength or weakness of the qualifications of the witness is merely a factor to be considered in weighing his testimony. Johnson v. Egert, 233 S.W.2d 958 (Tex.Civ.App., 1950, writ ref'd, n.r.e.).
Where the issue relates to the value of chattels, the test determining competency is liberally applied, with few attempts to lay down detailed tests, and this liberality is increased where the witness is also the owner of the article in question. Thus, it has been suggested by an eminent authority that the owner of a chattel, 'whether he is generally familiar with such values or not, ought certainly to be allowed to estimate its worth,' leaving the weight of his testimony to be determined by the trier of fact. 3 Wigmore, Evidence, § 716, p. 48 (1940). In Hillin v. Hagler, 286 S.W.2d 661, 662 (Tex.Civ.App.1956, no. writ), the Court pointed out: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wright v. Gernandt
...in part on information received from others. Putman v. Sanders, 537 S.W.2d 308, 312 (Tex.Civ.App. Amarillo 1976, no writ); Cortez v. Mascarro, 412 S.W.2d 342, 343-44 (Tex.Civ.App. San Antonio 1967, no writ). It must be remembered that the owner of a chattel may testify to its value (if he k......
-
Foust v. Walters
...the qualifications of a witness testifying to value goes to the weight to be given to the testimony, not its admissibility. Cortez v. Mascarro, 412 S.W.2d 342, 343 (Tex. Civ. App.-San Antonio 1967, no writ). A trial court's admission of such testimony will not be disturbed unless it was cle......
-
Emmco Ins. Co. v. Burrows
...the telephone. The first time he saw the truck after the accident was in Texas about a month after the accident. In the case of Cortez v. Mascarro, 412 S.W.2d 342 (Tex.Civ.App., San Antonio, 1967, n.w.h.), the court 'Where the issue relates to the value of chattels, the test determining com......
-
Aatco Transmission Co. v. Hollins
...as the trier of fact, was entitled to base its finding on appellee's opinion testimony as to the value of his car and tapes. Cortez v. Mascarro, 412 S.W.2d 342, 344 (Tex.Civ.App.--San Antonio 1967, no writ). Therefore, even if the exhibits in question were inadmissible hearsay, any error in......