Opinion
Opinion, May 27, 1935.
EVIDENCE. DAMAGES.
Where there is sufficient credible evidence to justify a verdict the same will not be disturbed by the Law Court. In cases involving damage to motor vehicles, the rule long established in this jurisdiction is, that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the difference between the value of the car before and after the accident. The cost of repairs may be an important element in determining this figure, but it is not conclusive.
In the case at bar, the defendant had the right of way, and without rebutting evidence the presumption of negligence would be against the plaintiff. The issues as to due care of the plaintiff, and as to the negligence of the defendant were for the jury. There was sufficient evidence to justify their verdicts. Damages awarded were not excessive.
On exceptions and general motions for new trials. Two actions on the case tried together to recover damages arising out of collision between automobile of plaintiff, John J. Collins, driven by his daughter, Irene V. Collins, and automobile of the defendant. Action by the father was to recover damages to his car, and by the daughter for personal injuries. Trial was had at the March Term, 1935, of the Superior Court for the County of Cumberland. The jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiff, John J. Collins, in the sum of $319.17, and for the plaintiff, Irene V. Collins, in the sum of $507.08. To the refusal of the presiding Justice to direct verdicts for the defendant, exception was seasonably taken, and after the jury verdict, a general motion for new trial in each case was filed by the defendant. Motions overruled. Exceptions overruled. The cases fully appear in the opinion.
Richard E. Harvey, for plaintiffs.
Robinson Richardson, for defendant.
SITTING: PATTANGALL, C. J., DUNN, STURGIS, BARNES, THAXTER, HUDSON, JJ.
An automobile owned by the plaintiff, John J. Collins, and driven by his daughter, Irene V. Collins, was in collision with another driven by the defendant, Esther Kelley. Out of this accident arise these two cases, one brought by the father to recover for the damage to his car, the other by his daughter for personal injuries. After verdicts for the plaintiffs in both cases, motions for new trials were filed. These raise the same issues as the exceptions filed to the refusal to direct verdicts for the defendants.
The collision took place at the junction of Spring and Brackett Streets in Portland. The plaintiff, Irene V. Collins, was driving south and the defendant east. The defendant had the right of way and without rebutting evidence the presumption of negligence would be against the plaintiff. Dansky v. Kotimaki, 125 Me. 72, 130 A. 871. There was testimony as to the speed of the defendant's automobile, the position of the cars at the time of the impact, and the force of the blow, which, if believed by the jury, was sufficient to justify the verdicts. The issues as to the due care of the plaintiff, Irene V. Collins, and as to the negligence of the defendant were for the jury. That as triers of fact we might have decided the questions differently is beside the point.
The defendant claims that the damages are too high. Miss Collins received severe bruises and a cut on the wrist which required stitches to close. Though not permanently injured, she suffered from the effects of the accident for some time. The verdict for $507.08 does not, under the circumstances, seem unduly excessive. On the question as to the damage to the car owned by the plaintiff, John J. Collins, there was testimony that the car was worth $650 before the accident, and $300 afterwards, and that it could be repaired for $206. The defendant claims that the latter figure is the limit of the plaintiff's recovery. The rule long established in this jurisdiction is that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the difference between the value of the car before and after the accident. Moore v. Daggett, 129 Me. 488, 150 A. 538. The cost of repairs may be an important element in determining that figure, but it is not conclusive. The jury allowed the plaintiff $319.17. In view of all the evidence, we can not hold such award excessive.
Motions overruled. Exceptions overruled.