Mayer v. McNair Transp. Inc.

• Decision Date: 06 May 1980
• Docket Number: No. 14149,14149
• Citation: 384 So.2d 525
• Parties: Malroy O. MAYER and Mattie Lou Mayer, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. McNAIR TRANSPORT, INC., Benjamin R. Martin, and Excalibur Insurance Company, Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

Page 525

384 So.2d 525

Malroy O. MAYER and Mattie Lou Mayer, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. McNAIR TRANSPORT, INC., Benjamin R. Martin, and Excalibur Insurance Company, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 14149.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.

May 6, 1980.

En Banc. Rehearing Denied June 12, 1980.

Theus, Grisham, Davis & Leigh by Brian E. Crawford, Monroe, for defendants-appellants.

Hudson, Potts & Bernstein by B. G. Iverson, Monroe, for plaintiffs-appellees.

Before PRICE, HALL, MARVIN, JJ.

PRICE, Judge.

Plaintiffs filed suit for damages resulting from the destruction of their home by fire when a large transport vehicle owned and operated by defendant, McNair, overturned and spilled its flammable gas contents. Although liability was admitted, defendants appeal the lower court's award of damages. We affirm.

At the time of the accident plaintiffs, Mr. and Mrs. Mayer, were 68 and 70 years old respectively. They had purchased their two story home in 1949 when the neighborhood in which it was located was primarily a residential area not far from the Monroe business district. During the time the couple owned the home, the character of the neighborhood changed from substantially residential to substantially commercial. This change in the character of the neighborhood was accentuated in the mid 1960's with the construction of I-20 near the Mayer home, with an exit ramp from this elevated highway emptying onto Jackson Street just north of and across the street from the residence.

Despite the gradual decline of the neighborhood, Mr. Mayer, who was a carpenter by profession, spent considerable time and money maintaining and improving the property. Between 1971 and 1975, he spent approximately $25,000 and substantial labor remodeling and at the time of the accident had begun another major remodeling project to convert the home to a fourplex apartment building in order to supplement their income.

When the accident occurred Mr. and Mrs. Mayer were in the kitchen preparing breakfast. Immediately after the initial impact, the home was engulfed in flames. After seeing the flames Mrs. Mayer experienced a severe state of shock and had to be taken to a neighbor's home by her husband and was unable to assist him in efforts to save some of their belongings.

Defendants conceded liability and damages for the lost contents of the home were stipulated. A trial before a jury was held regarding damages for the destruction of the home and the mental anguish suffered by Mrs. Mayer. The jury awarded the couple $93,000 for the loss of their home and $18,500 to Mrs. Mayer for her mental anguish. Defendants appeal contending both awards are excessive.

The expert witness called by plaintiffs estimated the market value of the home at the time of the accident to be $57,000. He also testified that another proper method of valuation would be replacement costs less depreciation. Using this method, he estimated a replacement cost of $45 per square foot and reached a total replacement cost of approximately $240,000 which he depreciated by 50% to reach a value of approximately $120,000.

Defendants' expert estimated the market value of the home to be approximately $28,000. Using the replacement cost less depreciation method, he estimated a replacement cost of $35 per square foot, reaching a total replacement cost of $187,000 which he depreciated by 84% to reach a value of approximately $30,000.

Regarding this question of damages, the court gave the jury the following instructions:

In arriving at the amount of damages to property, our courts have in the past followed three approaches: (1) the cost of restoration, if the thing damaged can be adequately repaired; ...