Hayes Freight Lines v. Tarver

• Decision Date: 14 May 1947
• Docket Number: 30845.
• Citation: 148 Ohio St. 82,73 N.E.2d 192
• Parties: HAYES FREIGHT LINES, Inc. v. TARVER.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

73 N.E.2d 192

148 Ohio St. 82

HAYES FREIGHT LINES, Inc. v. TARVER.

No. 30845.

Supreme Court of Ohio

May 14, 1947

Syllabus by the Court.

1. One who recovers the full value of a motor vehicle completely destroyed by the negligent acts of another, or the full value thereof less wreckage or salvage value where the vehicle is damaged beyond repair, may not also recover for the loss of the use of the vehicle.

2. Where a motor vehicle has been damaged through the negligent acts of another only to such extent that it is reasonably capable of being repaired within a reasonable period of time after its damage, the owner may recover not only the difference in value of the vehicle immediately before and immediately after the damage, but may also recover the loss of the use of the vehicle for such reasonable period of time as is necessary to make the repairs.

3. Where the owner of a motor vehicle seeks to recover the loss of the use of such vehicle damaged through the negligent acts of another, he must allege and there must be proof that his damaged vehicle reasonably capable of being repaired within a reasonable period of time after its damage, and the burden of proving such fact rests upon him.

Appeal from Court of Appeals, Mahoning County.

WEYGANDT C. J., and TURNER, J., dissenting.

This is an appeal on questions of law, following the allowance of a motion to certify the record from the Court of Appeals for Mahoning county, which court affirmed a judgment of the Common Pleas Court for the defendant on his cross-petition.

The action arose out of a collision between plaintiff's tractor-trailer and the defendant's motor truck at a highway intersection. The defendant's cross-petition sets out two causes of action. The first alleges damage to his truck in the sum of $925 under the claim that the truck was worth $1,400 Before it was damaged and $475 immediately thereafter.

The defendant for his second cause of action alleges that he lost the use of his truck for 56 days, and that the reasonable value of the use of the truck was $25 per day or a total for such loss of use in the sum of $1,400. The verdict of the jury and judgment of the court were for the defendant in the sum of $2,300, substantially the amount claimed under both causes of action. The claims of the plaintiff for damages to and loss of use of its tractor-trailer were denied.

The defendant's cross-petition does not allege that his damaged truck was repairable or that 56 days were required to have it repaired. The plaintiff claims that the defendant is not entitled to recover under the allegations in the second cause of action of the cross-petition or under the evidence offered in support thereof.

Other pertinent facts are stated in the opinion.

William E. Pfau, of Youngstown, for appellant.

H. I. Gardner, of Warren, for appellee.

HART Judge.

The sole question here involved is whether the proper measure of damages was applied with reference to the facts developed by the evidence in this case.

Counsel for both parties concede that one who recovers the full value of a motor vehicle completely destroyed by the negligent acts of another or the full value thereof less wreckage or salvage value where the vehicle is damaged beyond repair may not also recover for the loss of the use of the vehicle. The reason for this rule is that in the recovery of the full value of the vehicle, as of the date of its destruction, the owner has been made whole. Chambers v. Cunningham, 153 Okl. 129, 5 P.2d 378, 78 A.L.R. 905; Cook v. Packard Motor Car Co., 88 Conn. 590, 92 A. 413, L.R.A. 1915c, 319; annotation, 32 A.L.R. 706; annotation, 78 A.L.R. 910; 5 American Jurisprudence, 905, Section 745; Barnes v. United Rys. & Electric Co., 140 Md. 14, 116 A. 855; Pugh v. Queal Lumber Co., 193 Iowa 924, 188 N.W. 1; Ft. Pitt Gas Co. v. Evansville Contract Co., 3 Cir., 123 F. 63.

On the other hand, counsel for the parties substantially agree that where a motor vehicle has been damaged through the negligent acts of another only to such extent that it is reasonably capable of being repaired within a reasonable period of time after its damage, the owner may recover not only the difference in value of the vehicle immediately before and immediately after the damage, but may also recover the loss of the use of such vehicle for such reasonable period of time as is necessary to make the repairs. The reason for this rule is that in such case the owner does not recover the entire value of his car but only the depreciation caused by its damage, and while repairs are being made the greater portion of his capital investment lies idle. Antokol v. Barber, 248 Mass. 393, 143 N.E. 350, 32 A.L.R. 703; Chambers v. Cunningham, supra, annotation 78 A.L.R. 912; 5 American Jurisprudence, 907, Section 750; annotation, 4 A.L.R. 1355.

Counsel for plaintiff claims that there was no proper evidence offered by the defendant, as cross-petitioner in this case, as a basis for the claimed applicability of the second rule above stated, and as a result there was no basis upon which the court was warranted in charging the jury as to the measure of damages under such rule and no basis upon which the jury could apply such rule in the estimation of damages.

The charge of the court on this subject was as follows: '* * * if one party or the other is found to be entitled to recover damages it would be for the damage to the car and the loss of the use if that appeared as an element. Now this is the law on that: When an automobile has been damaged by the negligence of another and it can be repaired the proper measure of damages is the difference between the market value of the automobile before it was damaged and its value immediately thereafter, together with the value of the loss of the use of it while it was being repaired. If the car cannot be repaired the measure of damages is the difference between its value before it was damaged and the value of the wreckage. If no usable value is shown in its...