Goode v. Hantz
| Decision Date | 18 March 1946 |
| Docket Number | 37909. |
| Citation | 209 La. 821,25 So.2d 604 |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | GOODE v. HANTZ et al. |
Appeal from Fourteenth Judicial District Court Parish of Calcasieu; Mark C. Pickrel, Judge.
Thomas F. Porter, of Lake Charles, for defendants-appellants.
Plauche & Stockwell and James R. St. Dizier, all of Lake Charles for plaintiff-appellee.
The plaintiff's 1942 DeSoto Sedan was damaged in a collision with a Chevrolet truck. Alleging that the several defendants were liable in solido, the plaintiff sued for $2250 'damages to 1942 DeSoto Sedan' and for $1250 'loss of twenty-five days.'
The district court found for the plaintiff, awarding $1189.10 damages to his automobile and $423.21 for loss of time.
The defendants, on appeal to this Court, have admitted their liability, asking, however, that the judgment be reduced by eliminating the award for loss of time and reducing the car damage item to the amount necessary to restore the plaintiff's car to the same condition as it was before the accident.
The plaintiff answered the appeal, requesting only that the judgment of the district court be affirmed with costs.
The defendants subsequently filed a motion to remand the case in order that they might show that, since that appeal was perfected, 'the plaintiff had had the damage to his car fully repaired for the sum of $743.61,' or 'for $445.49 less than the amount of damages awarded him by the trial court on this item.'
The district judge, on the theory that it was impossible to say how long it would be required to secure the necessary parts to make the proper repairs, fixed the award for damage to the DeSoto Sedan by deducting from the ceiling price of $1689.10 'the salvage value' of the wrecked vehicle, which amount was set by the garage man having it in charge, at $500.
Our study of the record convinces us that the plaintiff, has he elected to do so, could have had his car fully repaired within four or six weeks time with new parts in place of those damaged except for the decorative mouldings, and that the mouldings on the car could have been made usable.
Mr. Collier, who operates an automobile repair business, testified at the trial that the plaintiff's automobile had been in his possession since the accident; that his charge for repairs would be $743.61; that he had on hand 'all the parts, except maybe the trim mouldings * * *'; that at the time of the wreck, he had 'a new hood, fenders, and stuff like that * * *'; and that '* * * about thirty days after the wreck, I found out I could get a frame * * * I have the frame in my stock.'
The rule of law has long been settled in this State that where an automobile is damaged, the owner is entitled only to the amount it will cost to place the machine in the same condition as it was before the accident. Folse v. Flynn La.App., 200 So. 160; Potomac Ins. Co. v. Blaise, La.App., 181 So. 629; Dixon v. Futch, 166 So. 205; Midlo v. Fairchild Motor Corporation, La.App., 158 So. 245; Sherwood v. American Railway Express Co., 158 La. 43, 103 So. 436; Lambert v. American Box Co., 144 La. 604, 81 So. 95, 3 A.L.R. 612; Bianchi v. Mussachi, 1 La.App., 291; Berry, Law of Automobiles, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
96-92 La.App. 3 Cir. 9/25/96, Pierce v. Milford
...applicable, where the fact of loss of earnings or earning power, past or future, is proved, but not any exact amount. Goode v. Hantz, 209 La. 821, 25 So.2d 604 (1946); Clouatre v. Toye Bros. Yellow Cab Co., 193 So.2d 344 (La.App. 4 Cir.1966), certiorari denied 250 La. 270, 195 So.2d 147 (19......
-
Jordan v. Travelers Ins. Co.
...applicable, where the fact of loss of earnings or earning power, past or future, is proved, but not any exact amount. Goode v. Hantz, 209 La. 821, 25 So.2d 604 (1946); Clouatre v. Toye Bros. Yellow Cab Co., 193 So.2d 344 (La.App.4th Cir. 1966), certiorari denied 250 La. 270, 195 So.2d 147 (......
-
Spillers v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc.
...applicable, where the fact of loss of earnings or earning power, past or future, is proved, but not any exact amount. Goode v. Hantz, 209 La. 821, 25 So.2d 604 (1946); Clouatre v. Toye Bros. Yellow Cab Co., 193 So.2d 344 (La.App.4th Cir. 1966), certiorari denied 250 La. 270, 195 So.2d 147 (......
-
Coleman v. Victor
...five months later, she sold it for the sum of $350. Plaintiffs erroneously refer to this sum as 'salvage' value. 7 In Goode v. Hantz, 209 La. 821, 25 So.2d 604 (1946), the district court fixed the award for damage to the vehicle by deducting from the market value of $1,689.10 'the salvage v......