Wilber v. Buckingham

• Decision Date: 24 October 1911
• Citation: 132 N.W. 960,153 Iowa 194
• Parties: WILBER v. BUCKINGHAM.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

153 Iowa 194

132 N.W. 960

WILBER

v.BUCKINGHAM.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Oct. 24, 1911.

Appeal from District Court, Union County; H. K. Evans, Judge.

Action for damages to an automobile resulted in a judgment against defendant, from which he appeals. Affirmed on condition of remission of part of recovery.Hunn & Jones and P. C. Winter, for appellant.

Jas. G. Bull, for appellee.

LADD, J.

[1] On April 28, 1909, plaintiff left his automobile in defendant's barn, and went to Missouri. He returned about July 1st, and upon examining the machine discovered, as he testified, that it had been damaged. He demanded of defendant that he put it in as good condition as when delivered in his barn. The defendant declined to have it repaired, and insisted that the machine was in substantially the same condition as when left with him, and that, if used, this was with the plaintiff's consent. Plaintiff denied having authorized use, save by one Shatto, for purposes of demonstration. These issues were decided by the jury in favor of the plaintiff, and, though we might not have reached the same conclusion, the evidence was such as to preclude interference with the verdict.

[2] 2. It is also contended that the damages allowed were excessive. Though plaintiff supposed the machine, a Ford runabout, to have been a 1908 model, it had been licensed in 1906, and he was its fourth owner after leaving the factory. Moreover, it was so worn then that he was unable to drive it to Orilla, eight or ten miles south of Des Moines, and, after procuring a machinist to assist, was compelled to ship it to Lorimer by railway. Upon reaching that place, the machinist repaired the machine, putting in a new differential gear, and, after running it about a mile, stored it as related. The plaintiff testified that, upon examining the machine about July 1st, “the crank case was broken, the connection rod boxing worn, and two cylinders badly worn, and a piston head broken, the differential case was broken, and the gears worn, also the transmission. These transmission gears were the new ones I had put in. One spring was broken, the brace was broken, and the front axle was bent backwards, so the wheels set together in front and out at the bottom.” There was evidence that the cost of the new parts to replace those broken or worn would be less than $50, and that the value of the labor in replacing them and putting the machine in repair would be from $25 to $60. Plaintiff also testified that the “best tire is now in worse condition than the worst was when I got it. * * * The tires were in good condition when I bought the machine. There were no holes in them. I couldn't tell for certain when these tires were put on that machine.” His brother testified that he noticed that “the tires were ruined--entirely ruined,” and there was other evidence that new tires then cost $50 apiece. This was all the evidence bearing on the measure of damages, save that in behalf of defendant, tending to show that the machine was in substantially the same condition July 1st as when first placed in defendant's barn. It is manifest from this recital of the evidence that the damages proven did not amount to the $165 awarded. Even if new tires for this machine did cost $50 each (which we doubt), and three of those on it were “ruined,” there was no evidence of the value of these when the automobile was placed in the barn, nor the extent they were then worn, even though in a good condition generally. Plaintiff was not entitled to the value of new tires, but of those which had been “ruined,” and this is to be said of other parts. The evidence, when fairly considered, did not justify an award of more than $100 in damages.

[3] 3. Two witnesses testified to the value of the parts of the machine necessary to replace those injured. Neither was able to estimate such values without referring to and refreshing his memory from a printed catalogue of prices issued by the Ford Motor C...