HILLSIDE VAN LINES, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
JACK MATALON AND ROSE MATALON, HIS WIFE, APPELLEES
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 court held that the evidence of the value of damaged articles was insufficient to support the amount of damages awarded.
[1] A person whose chattel is damaged, but not totally destroyed, is entitled to the difference between the value before and after the damage, or at their election, the reaso…
[2] Testimony regarding the original purchase price of damaged articles, without further evidence of their value after damage or cost of repair, is insufficient to support an…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs contracted with defendant Hillside Van Lines for transport and storage of belongings. Some items were lost or damaged due to Hillside's neg…
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 Loss Of Use cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant-appellant seeks review of an adverse final judgment in an action to recover for damages to goods of the plaintiff-appellees.
Plaintiffs, Mr. and Mrs. Jack Matalón, filed a complaint for damages wherein they alleged that they had contracted with the defendant, Hillside Van Lines, Inc., to have their furniture and belongings transferred from New York to Florida and stored • in the warehouse of defendant Courtesy Transfer & Storage, Inc., and that some of their belongings were lost and others damaged in transit due to defendant Hillside’s negligence. They further alleged that they filed with the defendant Courtesy Transfer & Storage, Inc., a claim schedule and were paid only $104. The cause proceeded to trial at the conclusion of which the trial judge entered judgment in the amount of $2,480 plus costs in favor of the plaintiffs and against Hillside Van Lines, Inc. Defendant appeals therefrom.
Appellant first contends that the evidence relating to the value of the damaged articles was insufficient to support the amount of damages awarded. We agree.
A person whose chattel is damaged, but not totally destroyed, is 'entitled to the difference between the value before and after the damage, or at his election, the reasonable cost of repair with due allowance for the difference between the original value and the value after repair and to be compensated for the loss of use. Airtech Service, Inc. v. MacDonald Construction Company, Fla.App.1963, 150 So. 2d 465. Turning to the case sub judice, the record reflects that the only evidence as to the value of the damaged articles was the testimony of the plaintiffs as to what they paid for each item. Based upon this testimony, the trial judge awarded plaintiffs $2,480. Thus, the proof adduced at trial as to value of the measure of damages was incorrect. Cf. McDonald Air Conditioning, Inc. v. John Brown, Inc., Fla.App. 1973, 285 So. 2d 697.
Accordingly, the judgment herein appealed is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Polyglycoat Corp. v. Hirsch Distribs., Inc., 442 So. 2d 958 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)…fference between the value before and after the damage or the reasonable cost of repair with due allowance for the difference between the original value and the value after repair, and compensation for the loss of use. Hillside Van Lines v. Matalon, 297 So. 2d 848 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); 22 Am. Jur.2d Damages § 177. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for a new trial on the damage issues. BERANEK and DELL, JJ., concur.…
-
The Keyes Co. v. Shea, 372 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)…upon the proper measure of damages to be used, we think it advisable to treat that question in some detail. There are a number of Florida cases dealing with the measure of damage for injury to personal property: Hillside Van Lines, Inc. v. Matalon, 297 So. 2d 848 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1974); Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Skyway Marine, Inc. 251 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1971); Airtech Service, Inc. v. MacDonald Construction Co. 150 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1963). However, a workable statement of the measure of damage to…
-
Port Largo Club, Inc. v. Warren, 476 So. 2d 1330 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…1 and 1982 asking prices. There was no competent evidence that the asking prices represented 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 por…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Airtech Serv., Inc. v. MacDONALD Constr. Co., 150 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- McDONALD AIR Conditioning, Inc. v. John Brown, Inc., 285 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)