Daniels v. Turner

• Decision Date: 23 November 1983
• Citation: 441 So.2d 978
• Parties: Tommy DANIELS and National Security Fire & Casualty Company v. John TURNER. Civ. 3872.
• Court: Alabama Court of Civil Appeals

Page 978

441 So.2d 978

Tommy DANIELS and National Security Fire & Casualty Company v. John TURNER.

Civ. 3872.

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

Nov. 23, 1983.

Gary W. Lackey, Scottsboro, for appellants.

Robert E. Paden of Paden, Green, Paden & Bivona, Bessemer, for appellee.

BRADLEY, Judge.

Defendants, Tommy Daniels and National Security Fire and Casualty Company, appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff, John Turner, in the amount of $6,000.

John Turner was involved in an automobile accident in which his 1981 Toyota Corolla was damaged. National Security Fire and Casualty Company (National Security), through its adjuster, Tommy Daniels, suggested that Turner obtain bids for the repair of the vehicle. Bids ranging from $1,862.84 to $1,172.37 were obtained and the low bidder, Royal Oldsmobile, Inc. (Royal), was selected to do the repairs.

When Turner picked up his car at Royal, he was told that the repairs had been completed but that "it was not right" and that "it should have a new quarter panel put on." Turner, however, accepted the car from Royal and later determined that his car had not been properly repaired. He then obtained bids from two body shops to correct the problems with his car. The highest of these bids was $1,695.50.

Not being able to persuade National Security to pay for the additional repairs to his vehicle, Turner filed this action. The complaint was for breach of contract and fraud. After a jury trial a verdict in the amount of $6,000 plus interest was rendered in favor of Turner for breach of contract.

National Security and Daniels filed a motion for judgment n.o.v. or, in the alternative, for a new trial or a remittitur. Motion denied. National Security and Daniels appeal.

The sole issue here is whether the verdict and judgment are excessive and unsupported by the evidence. "[T]he measure of damages for injury to personal property is generally the difference in the reasonable market value immediately before and after the injury. Crump v. Geer Brothers, Inc., 336 So.2d 1091 (Ala.1976); Fuller v. Martin, 41 Ala.App. 160, 125 So.2d 4 [Ala.Ct.App.1960]. The owner of property is qualified to state his opinion as to value before and after injury. Chambers v. Burgess, 50 Ala.App. 591, 281 So.2d 643 [Ala.Civ.App.1972]; Parker v. Muse, 47 Ala.App. 84, 250 So.2d 688 [Ala.Civ.App.1971]. Evidence of the cost of repairs is a factor which the trier of fact is authorized to consider in determining the true measure of damages. Arrick v. Fanning, 35 Ala.App. 409, 47 So.2d 708 [Ala.Ct.App.1950]. Additionally, whether it is possible to restore the automobile, through repair, to as good condition as before the injury, is relevant to the question of damages. Donaldson v. Foreman, 213 Ala. 232, 104 So. 406 (1925). The cost of repairs alone, however, is not the measure of damages. Winn-Dixie Montgomery, Inc. v. Holt, 57 Ala.App. 499, 329 So.2d 556 [Ala.Civ.App.1976].

"On a question of fact, the finding of the trial court is presumed to be correct. Adams Supply Company v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, 269 Ala. 171, 111 So.2d 906 (1959). Having the standing of a jury verdict, such finding will not be set aside on appeal unless, after allowing all reasonable inferences in favor of its correctness, there exists in the record such a preponderance of evidence against it that this court must find it palpably wrong and...