Court Opinion

ID: 9831778
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:21:08.212986+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:37.879285
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
[3, 4] The findings of the jury are against appellant on every issue and supported by evidence. They found the horse to be worth $125.00 before the injury and of no value just after the injury and none on the day of trial. They found the $38.50 expended in the necessary care to be reasonable. It is true the issue of value was sharply drawn, and that the horse may have some value, but as said in Nading v. Denison & P. Suburban Ry. Co., 22 Tex. Civ. App. 175, 54 S. W. 413:
“It is often the legal duty of the injured party to incur such expense to prevent or limit the damages; and if it is judicious, and made in good faith, it is recoverable, though abortive. 1 Suth. Dam. (2d Ed.) p. 132; Mayor, etc., v. Sutherland (Tenn. Sup.) 29 S. W. 228. Care should be taken, however, not to allow a double recovery for this element of damage.”
It is held in G., C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Keith, 74 Tex. 289, 11 S. W. 1117:
“The general rule undoubtedly is that where there is a total loss of personal property resulting from the negligence of the defendant the measure of damages is the value of the *678property at the time of the injury and interest. This rule is not inflexible. Where an animal is so injured that its usefulness is not only impaired but destroyed, the measure of damages is,’ifs value, reasonable compensation for attention, and expenses in prudent efforts to effect a cure.
“It is said in Shearman & Redfield on Negligence: ‘The law would be inhuman if it should prescribe a different rule even where the animal eventually dies, since it would then offer an inducement to the owner to neglect its sufferings.’ Section 603, and note 2.”
It is held in St. Louis S. W. Ry. Co. v. Chambliss (Tex. Civ. App.) 54 S. W. 401:
“It is contended by appellant that the prooi shows that the mule injured was rendered worthless by the injury, and plaintiff could only recover its market value. If the mule was rendered worthless by the injury, and that fact appeared at the time, then plaintiff would not be entitled to recover for his time and labor given and expenses incurred in caring for the mule. If, however, the injury was such that it did not clearly appear that the mule was rendered worthless, but its condition was such that a reasonably prudent man would have had reason to believe that by proper care the mule could be cured or rendered serviceable, then such time, labor, or expense reasonably expended for that purpose would be recoverable, in addition to the market value of the mule, though the injury may have rendered it worthless.”
It may be that upon a proper plea the court would have ordered the animal sold for the benefit of appellant, upon the payment of the judgment and costs. Upon the further disposition of the animal, as the question is not before us, we express no opinion.
The motion is overruled.