Opinion
35451.
DECIDED FEBRUARY 15, 1955.
Damages. Before Judge Craigmiles. Thomasville City Court. September 22, 1954.
C. E. Hay, for plaintiff in error.
Jesse J. Gainey, contra.
1. Market value is a question peculiarly for the jury, and the jury is not required to accept uncontradicted opinion as to market value.
2. The failure of the judge to have the defendant in error notified of his intention to certify the bill of exceptions, prior to its certification, is not reversible error.
DECIDED FEBRUARY 15, 1955.
Tom Carter filed suit in Thomasville City Court against Annie Lee Gilley Hayes, for damages to his 1953 Mercury automobile, allegedly caused by negligence of the defendant. The case was tried September 22, 1954, and neither the defendant nor her attorney were present.
The only testimony given at the trial was that of the plaintiff, which in substance was that he had bought the 1953 Mercury automobile for $3,200 shortly prior to the collision, and after the collision the automobile had a market value of only $2,600. Therefore, he had been damaged in the amount of $600 as a result of said collision.
Following the plaintiff's testimony, the judge directed a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $600, and judgment was entered accordingly. The defendant excepted to the direction of the verdict.
1. The measure of the plaintiff's damages was the difference between the market value of the automobile immediately before and its market value immediately after the collision. This is of course established by proof of those values. The only evidence introduced upon the trial of the case concerning these values was the testimony of the plaintiff.
This testimony was merely opinion evidence as to the value of the automobile after the collision, and was not binding upon the jury in fixing the values and determining the amount the plaintiff was entitled to recover. Code § 38-1709. It was held in Birmingham Paper Company v. Holder, 24 Ga. App. 630, 632 ( 101 S.E. 692), that the question as to market value of an article is peculiarly for the jury and jurors are not required to accept as correct the uncontradicted opinion or estimate of a witness as to the value of property, and may by their verdict place a lower value upon the property.
For the reasons assigned, it was error for the judge to direct the verdict.
2. The plaintiff states in his brief that he was not given notice prior to the certification of the bill of exceptions as required by Code (Ann. Supp.) § 6-908.1. In Georgia Southern Fla. Ry. Co. v. Williamson, 84 Ga. App. 167 ( 65 S.E.2d 444), this court held that the failure of the judge to have the defendant in error notified of his intention to certify the bill of exceptions is not a reversible error.
Judgment reversed. Felton, C.J., and Nichols, J., concur.