Hammond Motor Co. v. Acker

• Decision Date: 02 May 1929
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 319.
• Citation: 219 Ala. 291,122 So. 173
• Parties: HAMMOND MOTOR CO. v. ACKER.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

122 So. 173

219 Ala. 291

HAMMOND MOTOR CO. v. ACKER.

6 Div. 319.

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 2, 1929

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Roger Snyder, Judge.

Action for damages by H. D. Acker against the Hammond Motor Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Transferred from Court of Appeals under Code 1923, § 7326. Affirmed.

Lange Simpson & Brantley, of Birmingham, for appellant.

Altman & Koenig, of Birmingham, for appellee.

BROWN J.

This is an action on the case by the appellee against the appellant for damage to the plaintiff's automobile, alleged to have been proximately caused by the negligence of the defendant's agent or servant while acting within the scope of his employment.

The case was submitted to the jury on count A of the complaint and the plea of the general issue, pleaded in short by consent, with leave to offer evidence any matter that would constitute a good special defense.

The evidence is without dispute that the defendant was, at the time of the alleged damage to the automobile, engaged in the business of selling automobiles, and in connection with its business operated a repair shop for adjusting and repairing automobiles; that it undertook for hire to adjust the front wheels of plaintiff's automobile, and the adjustment was made in the repair shop. Defendant's agent drove the automobile on the streets for the purpose of testing the work, and in so doing ran it against the curb of the street in such manner and at such rate of speed as to cause it to overturn, and as a proximate consequence thereof the chasis was wrenched, the front axle thrown out of alignment, the fenders injured, and the body and upholstering damaged. Thereafter some repairs were made by defendant's mechanics, some of the fenders being straightened, and others replaced, and the front axle was heated by use of an acetylene torch and straightened. The evidence goes to show that this method of heating the axle had a tendency to draw the temper of the axle and leave it in such condition that it was more liable to break. There was also evidence showing that subsequent to this repair the operation of the car resulted in crushing the ball bearings on the front spindles.

The evidence further tended to show that the wrecking of an automobile, though it was afterwards repaired, materially affected its market value. The plaintiff offered evidence tending to show that the market value of the automobile before it was turned over and damaged was from eleven hundred to one thousand dollars, and after it was damaged that its market value was from four to five hundred dollars.

The question of negligence and the quantum of damages were clearly for the jury.

The measure of damages, as a general rule, where personal property is injured, though not entirely destroyed, by the wrongful act of...