INDEPENDENT ICE AND COLD STORAGE COMPANY, INC.,
v.
TAMPA SAND AND MATERIAL COMPANY, INC.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a $600 judgment for negligent damage to an automobile truck, rejecting the defendant's arguments that the evidence was insufficient and that the contributory negligence question was improperly submitted to the jury.
The judgment is affirmed. The evidence of damages was sufficient where expert mechanics proved the parts damaged and replacement costs without objection and without any claim the amount was unreasonable. The contributory negligence question was properly submitted to the jury as it involved whether the driver was operating at a reasonable speed given the circumstances.
“when the cost of parts and labor to replace them is proven and no charge is made that it is unreasonable or was for other reasons excessive we will not hold it to be erroneous”
Establishes that proof of replacement costs is an acceptable measure of damages when uncontested as to reasonableness.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTampa Sand and Material Company sued Independent Ice and Cold Storage Company for negligent damage to its automobile truck. Expert mechanics testified…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Prima Facie Evidence Of Negligence cases and more on FLexlaw
Writ of error in this case 'is to a verdict and judgment in the sum of $600.00 awarded the Tampa Sand and Material Company, Inc., against Independent Ice and Cold Storage Company, Inc., in a common law action for negligent damage and injury to an automobile truck.
Plaintiff in error contends that the judgment should be reversed because the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict and judgment and for the further reason that the question of contributory negligence was not properly submitted to the jury.
As to the first question, it was proven by expert mechanics the 'number, name of the parts of the truck that were broken or damaged so that they had to be replaced, and what it would cost to replace them including the cost of the labor. No objection was offered to this evidence and it is nowhere 'charged that the amount allowed by the jury was unreasonable or greater than the cost of replacements. Such a measure of damages has been frequently upheld in cases of this kind. Huddy Encyclopedia of Automobile Law, Vol. 17-18, pages 530, 524, 527; Thrapp v. Meyers, 114 Neb. 689, 209 N. W. 238; Wofsey v. New York and S. R. Co., 106 Conn. 254, 138 Atl. 136; Konda v. Frumpkin, 90 Cal. App. 384, 265 Pac. 955.
It is not open to question that the usual measure of damages in cases like this is the difference between the market value of the automobile prior to and after the injury but when the cost of parts and labor to replace them is proven and no charge is made that it is unreasonable or was for other reasons excessive we will not hold it to be erroneous. Under such circumstances if error-was committed it was harmless.
As to the question of whether or not contributory neg*848ligence on the ’part of defendant in error was properly submitted to the jury little needs to be said.
In this case that question turns on that of whether or .not the driver of the truck of the defendant in error was driving at a reasonable and proper rate of speed at the time of the accident in view of the location, amount of traffic, condition of the road, and the use it was being subjected to. Section 1318, Compiled General Laws of 1927, regulates the operation of motor vehicles on the public highways and makes driving in excess of the speed designated prima facie evidence of negligent driving. Whether or not the law was being complied with at the time of the accident was a question for the jury to determine in the light of the evidence submitted. Merchants Transportation Co. v. Daniel, 109 Fla. 496, 149 So. 401.
Both the question of damages and the question of contributory negligence on the part of defendant in error were squarely before the jury and on the showing made we find no reason to disturb the judgment of the court below.
It is accordingly affirmed.
' Affirmed.
Ellis, C. J., and Whitfield, Brown, Buford and Davis, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Terminal Transp. Co., Inc. v. Lamtron Indus., Inc., 233 So. 2d 854 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)…ject of damages and did not object to the evidence on that issue upon the theory advanced in this court. We find that under these circumstances no prejudicial error has been shown. See Independent Ice & Cold Storage Co. v. Tampa Sand & Material Co., 126 Fla. 846, 171 So. 797 (1937). Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- Merchs. Transp. Co. v. Daniel, 109 Fla. 496 (Fla. 1933)