MCDONALD AIR CONDITIONING, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN BROWN, INC., D/B/A EQUIPMENT SALES COMPANY, APPELLEE
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.
McDonald Air Conditioning appeals a judgment for damages in a bailment case where John Brown, Inc. rented welding machines that were stolen from McDonald's job site. The court reverses and remands because the trial court's damage award lacked adequate proof of market value and rental loss, and procedural issues prevented McDonald from fully presenting its defense.
The judgment is reversed and remanded for a new trial because: (1) the proof of the machines' market value was inadequate—no witness testified to familiarity with the equipment's condition or provided proper foundation for valuation; (2) no proof was adduced regarding the period of rental value loss; and (3) while the trial judge did not abuse discretion in enforcing witness list rules, the procedural issues prevented McDonald from fully presenting its case, warranting a new trial on all issues.
[1] The proper measure of damages for the loss of personal property is its market value on the date of the loss.
[2] When personal property has no market value, other sources must be used to determine its value.
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The proper measure of damages for loss of personal property is its market value on the date of the loss.”
Establishes the controlling standard for valuing stolen equipment that the trial court failed to follow.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn June 1970, John Brown, Inc. rented two welding machines to McDonald Air Conditioning for $10.00 per day or $45.00 per week. Both machines were stol…
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 Market Value cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Judge.
This is an appeal from a final judgment for appellee and an order taxing costs after a nonjury trial.
In June of 1970, appellee rented two welding machines to appellant for $10.00 per day or $45.00 per week. Both machines were stolen from the appellant’s job site. Thereafter, appellee sued appellant for the value of the two machines and for loss of rental value. When the case came on for trial appellant objected to appellee calling any witnesses because it had not complied with the court’s order directing the filing of witness lists by both parties ten days prior to trial — the list had been filed six days prior to trial. The objection was sustained so appellee took a voluntary dismissal, refiled the suit and it was assigned to the same trial judge.
The case was tried by the court without a jury. The final judgment includes damages for loss of appellee’s personal property. However, the proof adduced at trial as to its value was inadequate and the measure of damages was incorrect. The proper measure of damages for loss of personal property is its market value on the date of the loss. Jacksonville, T. & K. W. Ry. Co. v. Peninsular Land, etc., Co., 27 Fla. 1, 157, 9 So. 661 (1891), 8 Am. Jur., 2d Bailments, § 333. If the item has no market value, such as heirlooms, etc., of necessity other sources must be used to determine value. The proof used here related to original cost of the items, present day cost of new machinery, etc. No witness testifying to value stated that he was familiar with the condition of the equipment in question, nor was any hypothetical question propounded so that a qualified person could testify to the market value of these machines.
A further point on the question of damages which requires reversal is the inclusion in the final judgment of some allowance for loss of rental value, though no proof was adduced to show rental value. One might consider the contract rental between the parties, but even if that suffices the evidence is indefinite as to the time period of that loss. Try as we might on this record, we cannot arrive at any definite period to calculate that aspect of the loss.
Appellant also complains because after the plaintiff had rested it sought to call several witnesses. But lo and behold this time appellant had failed to file any witness list, although the court had so ordered. The trial judge was consistent and refused to let him call any witness except the vice-president of the opposing party. Appellant made no proffer of the witness’ testimony and failed to apprize the court that the deposition of at least some of them was in the file. With the history of this case it is little wonder the trial judge sustained the objection. Rulings of the trial court of this nature will not be disturbed unless it is clearly demonstrated that he abused his broad discretion. Rose v. Yuille, Fla.App.1956, 88 So. 2d 318; Henningsen v. Smith, Fla.App.1965, 174 So. 2d 85; County of Brevard v. Interstate Engineering Co., Fla.App.1969, 224 So. 2d 786; Green v. Shoop, Fla.App.1970, 240 So. 2d 85. We find no ‘abuse of discretion.
On the question of appellant’s negligence, the final judgment is supported by the record. However, since the case must be retried, it appears to us the ends of justice would be best served by retrying this issue also, particularly because appellant never really presented its case.
Accordingly, the final judgment of October 6, 1972 and the order of November 10, 1972 are reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial.
OWEN, C. J., and CROSS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Binger v. King Pest Control, 401 So. 2d 1310 (Fla. 1981)…isclosure, and limits reviewing courts to reversals only in cases of a clear showing of abuse prejudicial to the affected party. See e. g., Fuller v. Rinebolt, 382 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); McDonald Air Conditioning, Inc. v. John Brown, Inc., 285 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973); Green v. Shoop, 240 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970); County of Brevard v. Interstate Engineering Co., 224 So. 2d 786 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969); Alvarez v. Mauney, 175 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965). The only prior decision of this Court d…1 / 2
-
Port Largo Club, Inc. v. Warren, 476 So. 2d 1330 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…nted their fair market value. Where fair market value is at issue, expert testimony is necessary to prove the value thereof. Hillside Van Lines, Inc. v. Matalon, 297 So. 2d 848 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); McDonald Air Conditioning, Inc. v. John Brown, Inc., 285 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). For the foregoing reasons and based upon the authorities cited, the final judgments in favor of appellees are affirmed, except that the portions of the final judgments awarding damages are reversed and the cause is remanded for…
-
Burtless v. Pallero, 570 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…the vehicle, approximately $2,368.00. It is, of course, well established that the appropriate measure of damages for total loss of personal property is the property’s value on the date of loss. McDonald Air Conditioning, Inc. v. John Brown, Inc., 285 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). This rule of recovery was only recently reaffirmed in Polyglycoat v. Hirsch Distributors, Inc., 442 So. 2d 958 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). The trial court action in dismissing appellant’s complaint with prejudice as to the balance on t…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jacksonville v. Peninsular Land, 27 Fla. 1 (Fla. 1891)
- Henningsen v. Smith, 174 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Rose v. Yuille, 88 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 1956)
- Cnty. OF Brevard v. Interstate Eng'g Co., Inc., 224 So. 2d 786 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)
- Eastling v. State, 240 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)