Case Name: FISHER BROS. CO. v. MORMINO
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1923-02-05
Citations: 1 Ohio Law Abs. 266
Docket Number: No. 4188
Parties: FISHER BROS. CO. v. MORMINO
Judges: 
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 1
Pages: 266–266

Head Matter:
220
FISHER BROS. CO. v. MORMINO
Ohio Court of Appeals, Cuyahoga County.
No. 4188.
February 5, 1923
This opinion -has not been published except in Abstract.
DAMAGES — (1) Damages for loss of use of truck to be computed by reasonable time required to repair it — (2) Unusual acts of trial judge while endeavoring to elicit facts, not improper conduct.
Error to M. C. of Cleveland
Attorneys, Wm. Edwin Bi-ooks, for Fisher Bros.; Klein & Klein, for Mormino.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Epitomized Opinion
A truck owned by Fisher Bros, collided with Mor-mino's truck under circumstances which made Fisher Bros, liable to respond in damages for the repair of the truck and the loss of its use. The trial court allowed $150 for damages to the truck and $250 for the loss of its use. Fisher Bros, claim the latter sum is excessive. Evidence differed as to what would have been a reasonable time in which to repair the truck and the allowance of $250 seems to have been a mere guess by the trial court. Held by Court of Appeals in reversing judgment for Mormino:
1. The amount of damages to be allowed for loss of Use of a motor truck should be determined, not by what was a reasonable time for making repairs on the truck, but by the actual time required in 'making such repairs, supported by proof that the actual time was reasonably necessary.
2. Although a trial judge called some of the witnesses and examined them himself, and sustained an objection to a question by counsel, although no objection was made by counsel for the other side, it being apparent that the trial judge was endeavoring to elicit facts so that he might render a just judgment, such conduct was not improper.