Court Opinion

ID: 9624177
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 06:53:20.943486+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:40.475746
License: Public Domain

SCHWAB, C. J.,
dissenting in part.
The majority holds that the trial court erred in failing to submit plaintiff’s loss-of-use claim to the *323jury. I would affirm, because under the law, as I understand it to be, the evidence produced by the plaintiff was not sufficient to make a jury question on this issue.
The owner of the repair shop which repaired the automobile testified to the repairs which were undertaken and how long they took. There was no testimony by him or anyone else as to that this was a reasonable time. An individual in the vehicle rental business testified what his regular charge was. Neither he nor anyone else testified that this charge was reasonable or customary in the trade. It may be that evidence of this kind from an individual in the business about which he is testifying should be sufficient to make a prima facie case. It may be that to require him to speak such words as "in my judgment these charges are reasonable,” is to elevate form over substance. Whether or not that be so, I read Oregon law as holding evidence of reasonableness is necessary. In Mathews v. City of La Grande, 136 Or 426, 430, 299 P 999 (1931) the court said:
" 'The rule is that a plaintiff in a case, involving personal injuries can recover, as a part of his damages, his reasonable expenses for medicines and medical treatment, but there must be some evidence that the charges are reasonable': Tuohy v. Columbia Steel Co., 61 Or 527 (122 P. 36).” (Emphasis supplied.)
In Scott v. Elliott, 253 Or 168, 182, 451 P2d 474 (1969), the court said, "The measure of damages for temporary loss of use of the property is the fair rental value of the property.” (Emphasis supplied.)
For the foregoing reasons I respectfully dissent.