Opinion ID: 1318401
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Damages for injury to the truck

Text: In awarding a new trial the judge concluded that the jury was erroneously instructed on the measure of damages and that the verdict was not supported by the evidence. The appellant contends that the jury was instructed correctly on the measure of damages and that the trial judge therefore erred in setting aside the jury's verdict. Syllabus point 2 of Jarrett v. E. L. Harper & Son, Inc., 160 W.Va. 399, 235 S.E.2d 362 (1977) provides: When realty is injured the owner may recover the cost of repairing it, plus his expenses stemming from the injury, including loss of use during the repair period. If the injury cannot be repaired or the cost of repair would exceed the property's market value, then the owner may recover its lost value, plus his expenses stemming from the injury including loss of use during the time he has been deprived of his property. Although Jarrett involved real property, we said that the rule for measurement of damages would be similar to the rule about damage to personal property. 235 S.E.2d at 365. In the case before us, the jury was instructed that the plaintiff may be entitled to recover the cost of repairing the truck so long as the costs of repair was less than the market value and provided that such costs resulted from the defendants' negligence. This was in accord with Jarrett, supra . There was sufficient evidence to support the $35,600 verdict. There was testimony from Hardman, Moneypenny, and Ours from which the jury could fairly determine the market value of the truck. All the repair bills were introduced into evidence. The questions of which repairs, and the reasonable costs thereof, were attributable to the defendants' negligence, was properly presented to the jury for its determination. Our test for the sufficiency of the evidence to support a jury verdict was recently restated in syllabus point 5 of Orr v. Crowder, ___ W.Va. ___, 315 S.E.2d 593 (1983): In determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a jury verdict the court should: (1) consider the evidence most favorable to the prevailing party; (2) assume that all conflicts in the evidence were resolved by the jury in favor of the prevailing party; (3) assume as proved all facts which the prevailing party's evidence tends to prove; and (4) give to the prevailing party the benefit of all favorable inferences which reasonably may be drawn from the facts proved. Syllabus point 5 of Kesner v. Trenton, 158 W.Va. 997, 216 S.E.2d 880 (1975) provides: The test in reviewing a judgment setting aside a jury verdict and awarding a new trial is whether the trial court's discretion in supervising verdicts, so as to prevent a miscarriage of justice, has been abused. Because the jury was properly instructed and its verdict was supported by the evidence, we conclude that the trial judge abused his discretion by setting aside the verdict.