Longworth v. McGrath
| Decision Date | 18 December 1928 |
| Citation | 108 Conn. 738,143 A. 845 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | LONGWORTH v. MCGRATH ET AL. |
Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, New Haven County; Harry J Beardsley, Judge.
Action by James E. Longworth against Margaret McGrath and another to recover damages for injuries to the plaintiff's automobile and for the loss of its use, alleged to have been caused by the defendants' negligence, brought to the court of common pleas for New Haven county at Waterbury and tried to the jury before Beardsley, J. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, and appeal by defendant Wihbey. No error.
De Lancey S. Pelgrift, of Hartford, for appellant.
Frank T. Healey, of Waterbury, for appellee.
Argued before WHEELER, C.J., and MALTBIE, HAINES, BANKS, and YEOMANS, JJ.
The sole error pursued on the appeal is the inclusion in the verdict of the sum of $140 for the loss of use of the plaintiff's automobile. The only evidence of loss of use was that of the plaintiff, who testified that the fair and reasonable rental value of a car such as the one injured per day was $10, exclusive of the cost of a driver and of gas and oil and taking into consideration the depreciation, that is the wear and tear on it every day. Because plaintiff testified that he had never hired a car of this type, the defendant appellant Wihbey claims that his testimony upon this subject-matter was mere hearsay.
That conclusion does not at all follow. The defendant neither sought to develop the basis of plaintiff's opinion or to offer evidence upon this point. He cannot now be permitted to make this claim, especially in view of the fact that the court refused to set aside the verdict.
The defendant further claims that plaintiff introduced no evidence to show how much should be allowed for depreciation. On cross-examination counsel for the defendant explained to the witness that by " depreciation" he meant wear and tear, and then inquired, " Were you taking that into consideration when you said ten dollars a day?" And he answered, " Yes, I am." The most that the defendant could claim from this was that the expression was susceptible of an equivocal meaning. We think the jury and court had the right to accept the answer as reasonably intending to exclude the element of depreciation. The evidence was sufficient from which to find the measure of the loss of use to plaintiff of this car for the admitted period of two...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hanson v. Hall
...of the value of use of a commercial vehicle is determined by the income derived from its use at the time of the tort. Longworth v. McGrath, 108 Conn. 738, 143 A. 845; Trout Auto Livery Co. v. People's Gas Light & C. Co., 168 Ill.App. 56; Cincinnati Traction Co. v. Feldkamp, 19 Ohio App. 421......
-
Hanson v. Hall
... ... vehicle is determined by the income derived from its use at ... the time of the tort. Longworth v. McGrath, 108 ... Conn. 738, 143 A. 845; Trout A.L. Co. v. Peoples G.L. & C. Co. 168 Ill.App. 56; Cincinnati Traction Co. v ... Feldkamp, ... ...
-
Anderson v. Gengras Motors
...Co., 88 Conn. 590, 594, 92 A. 413, L.R.A.1915C, 319; Hawkins v. Garford Trucking Co., 96 Conn. 337, 340, 114 A. 94; Longworth v. McGrath, 108 Conn. 738, 739, 143 A. 845; Hansen v. Costello, 125 Conn. 386, 388, 5 A.2d 880; see Fritts v. New York & N. E. R. Co., 62 Conn. 503, 509, 26 A. 347; ......
-
Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschaapij, N. V. v. United Technologies Corp., 627
...value may provide a measure of loss of use damages even though a substitute vehicle has not actually been hired. See Longworth v. McGrath, 108 Conn. 738, 143 A. 845 (1928); Naughton Mulgrew Motor Car Co. v. Westchester Fish Co., 105 Misc. 595, 597-98, 173 N.Y.S. 437 The theory behind the al......