Green v. Waidner

• Decision Date: 23 October 1984
• Docket Number: No. 0338,0338
• Citation: 284 S.C. 35,324 S.E.2d 331
• Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
• Parties: John GREEN, Respondent, v. Fritz WAIDNER, d/b/a Fritz Waidner Sports Cars, Inc., Appellant. . Heard

Page 331

324 S.E.2d 331

284 S.C. 35

John GREEN, Respondent, v. Fritz WAIDNER, d/b/a Fritz Waidner Sports Cars, Inc., Appellant.

No. 0338.

Court of Appeals of South Carolina.

Heard Oct. 23, 1984.

Decided Dec. 14, 1984.

J. Reese Daniel, Columbia, for appellant.

Edgar S. Kneece, Columbia, for respondent.

SHAW, Judge:

Respondent John Green brought this conversion action against appellant Fritz Waidner, the owner of a car repair business, for performing unauthorized repairs. The jury returned a verdict for $2500 for Green. We affirm.

When a jury verdict is appealed this Court can correct errors of law only; we will not disturb the jury's findings of fact unless a review of the record discloses no evidence reasonably supporting them. Townes Associates, Ltd. v. City of Greenville, 266 S.C. 81, 221 S.E.2d 773, 775 (1976).

In 1975, Green bought a 1969 Rover for $2500. In 1977 Waidner towed the car to his shop to repair the brakes. Green testified to asking Waidner's shop manager to give him an estimate before performing any repairs. Waidner's shop did not give an estimate, performed the repairs, and charged Green $1116. Green testified when he complained he had paid only $2500 for the car, Waidner's manager stated he valued the repaired car at $3500. Green refused to pay and brought this action.

The trial court instructed the jury the measure of damages for conversion equals the value of the property with interest thereon. The court further instructed that only if the facts disclosed that Waidner acted wilfully, wantonly, recklessly or maliciously could it award the enhanced value of the car resulting from the repairs. The jury returned a verdict of $2500 for Green the amount he had requested in his pleading. Waidner then moved for a new trial on the ground "the jury's verdict clearly exceeds the amount proven." The court denied this motion. Waidner's argument on appeal is the trial court erred in instructing on wilful conversion because Green pled and proved only "conversion."

Conversion is the "unauthorized assumption and exercise of the right of ownership over goods or personal chattels belonging to another, to the alteration of their condition or the exclusion of the owner's rights." Powell v. A.K. Brown Motor Co., 200 S.C. 75, 78, 20 S.E.2d 636, 637 (1942). In the case of an "innocent" conversion, where the property is converted by mistake or under a bona fide belief or right (as in the case of an innocent purchaser for value), the measure of damages is the value of the property at the time and place of conversion. Restatement (Second) of Torts Section 929 (1981). The owner of the property is not entitled to any additions or enhancements made by the converter.

The measure of damages for a wilful and intentional conversion, where the property is converted with knowledge of the owner's rights in the property, is the highest market value of the property with interest up to the time of trial, including any additional value due to additions or improvements made by the converter. Industrial Welding Supplies, Inc. v. Atlas Vending Co., 276 S.C. 196, 277 S.E.2d 885 (1981); Gregg v. Bank of Columbia, 72 S.C. 458, 52 S.E. 195 (1905); Restatement (Second) of Torts Section 927 (1981); 1 Am.Jur.2d Accession and Confusion Section 29 (1962). Only if the owner seeks punitive damages must the evidence show that the conversion was done recklessly and with conscious indifference to the owner's rights. Long v. Gibbs Auto Wrecking Co., 253 S.C. 370, 171 S.E.2d 155 (1969); Lumpkin v. Allstate Insurance Co., 251 S.C. 19, 159 S.E.2d 852 (1968). It was therefore error for the court to charge that Green must prove recklessness and wantonness in order to recover the value of the repairs.

Both the complaint and evidence in this case support a finding of a wilful and intentional conversion. The court was therefore required to instruct the jury that it could award Green the value of the car enhanced by the repairs made by Waidner unless Green himself limited his damages. Review of Green's complaint reveals that he prayed for damages "in the amount of the fair market value of [the] automobile at the time [it was] delivered ... to [Waidner] for a repair estimate, [and] for...