White v. Newman

Decision Date18 January 1960
Docket NumberNo. 9038,9038
Citation10 Utah 2d 62,348 P.2d 343
Partiesd 62 Edward H. WHITE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. John Alfred NEWMAN, Defendant and Appellant.
CourtUtah Supreme Court

Hurd, Bayle & Hurd, Salt Lake City, for appellant.

Sumner J. Hatch, Salt Lake City, for respondent.

HENRIOD, Justice.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff for damage to his motorcycle in a nonjury case. Affirmed, with costs to plaintiff.

Plaintiff drove his motorcycle into defendant's service station and asked the attendant to fill two gas tanks. He did not cut his motor. One tank was filled, and there is evidence to the effect that while filling the second tank the attendant in turning his head, spilled gas onto the hot engine. The trial court, whose function it was, found that this was the case and that the ensuing fire would have resulted even though plaintiff had turned off his motor, and hence was the sole proximate cause of the damage. This being so, under familiar rules of appellate review, we will not disturb the finding.

As to the error assigned that there was no competent evidence as to amount of the damages, the figure arrived at being based on a hearsay estimate, there was no objection voiced to the admissibility of such evidence, and we are not obliged to entertain such error, since hearsay evidence as to such value, unassailed, is competent. In this case, had objection been made, the plaintiff would have had an opportunity to call witnesses to prove such value.

CROCKETT, C. J., and WADE and CALLISTER, JJ., concur.

McDONOUGH, J., concurs in the result.

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • State v. Malmrose
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • June 22, 1982
    ...before appellate review can be requested. Stagmeyer v. Leatham Brothers, Inc., 20 Utah 2d 421, 439 P.2d 279 (1969); White v. Newman, 10 Utah 2d 62, 348 P.2d 343 (1960). The assignments of error where no objection was made at trial, therefore, are considered only to the extent that they may ......
  • Stagmeyer v. Leatham Bros., Inc.
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • March 25, 1968
    ...2d 39, 318 P.2d 330.4 That the common practice or custom is competent, see 38 Am.Jur. 680, also 77 A.L.R.2d 1327.5 White v. Newman, 10 Utah 2d 62, 348 P.2d 343 (1960); Child v. Child, 8 Utah 2d 261, 332 P.2d 981 (1958); State v. Amundsen, 37 Wash.2d 356, 223 P.2d 1067, 21 A.L.R.2d 1082; 5 A......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT