Opinion ID: 2608427
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: damages to the rileys' automobile

Text: The final question presented on this appeal is whether there is any evidence in the record to support the trial court's award of $350.00 special damages for damages to the Rileys' Ford. We think there is. Plaintiffs' complaint alleged that as a result of the collision, their automobile was damaged on the front right fender, grill, windshield, and other parts in the approximate amount of $350.00. At the trial, Mr. Riley testified that the Riley Ford sedan sustained damages to the right front fender, the hood, grill, the lights and door on the right hand side, and the windshield. Although the Ford had not been repaired, Mr. Riley estimated that the cost of such repairs in dollars and cents would amount to approximately $350.00. On cross-examination, this evidence was stricken because Mr. Riley's estimate was not based on any personal knowledge or actual repair bills, nor were written estimates on which he based his claim verified before the court. However, on redirect, Mr. Riley testified that the value of the auto to him, as owner, was approximately $1250 prior to the accident, while immediately thereafter he estimated its market value was practically nil because it was next to impossible to sell a car in an injured condition, except as junk. Over objection, the trial court also accepted his testimony that on two or three prior occasions he had tried to sell the car, first for $600, and then again for $500, but he couldn't sell it for either amount in its unrepaired condition. It is a settled rule in Idaho that the owner of property is a competent witness to its value. In Rankin v. Caldwell, 15 Idaho 625, 632, 99 P. 108 (1908), this court said: The general rule, that to qualify a witness to testify as to market value, a proper foundation must be laid showing the witness to have knowledge upon the subject, does not apply to a party who is testifying to the value of property which he owns. The owner of property is presumed, in a way, to be familiar with its value, by reason of inquiries, comparisons, purchases and sales. The weight of such testimony is another question, and may be affected by disclosures made upon cross-examination as to the basis for such knowledge, but this will not disqualify the owner as a witness. In Garrett v. Neitzel, 48 Idaho 727, 285 P. 472 (1930), the only direct evidence as to the actual value of an automobile which was purchased under the assumption that it was new, but which in fact turned out to be second-hand, was furnished by plaintiff herself. This evidence was held to be competent in view of the above rule and where, from the record, it appeared that plaintiff had previously owned some six or seven used cars. Furthermore, the record in this cause discloses that Mr. Riley was employed as a mechanic and had done mechanical work on automobiles most of his adult life. It is clear, then, that Mr. Riley's testimony as to the market value of the car, both before and after the accident, is competent. We hold that this evidence is sufficient to support the trial court's award of special damages to the Riley car in the amount of $350.00. Judgment affirmed. Costs to respondents. TAYLOR, C.J., and SMITH, McQUADE and McFADDEN, JJ., concur.