Court Opinion

ID: 9614909
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:29:35.117518+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:40.282956
License: Public Domain

LOPEZ, Judge (dissenting). I respectfully dissent. The award was so low that passion, prejudice, partiality or sympathy can be implied. I agree with the opinion that, “ . . . [mjost evidence on damages in this cause was on opinion. . ” This ignores the fact that there was evidence of original cost for some items. Original cost is a matter of fact, not opinion. The original shell of the structure was purchased for $4,000.00. Miscellaneous items such as feeds, medicines and equipment destroyed by the fire originally cost $937.22. These figures were uncontradicted and alone are well in excess of the verdict of $3,900.00. Since they are uncontradicted facts, the jury cannot arbitrarily disregard them. Samora v. Bradford, 81 N.M. 205, 465 P.2d 88 (Ct. App.1970). The opinion states that the evidence on, “ . . . original cost [required] an opinion to be relevant. . . . ” The court in Rutherford v. James, 33 N.M. 440, 270 P. 794 (1928), overruled on other grounds in Reed v. Styron, 69 N.M. 262, 365 P.2d 912 (1961), set out the rule as follows: “That evidence of the cost price of household goods or wearing apparel is admissible in an action for their loss is the rule. Of course, other circumstances must be taken into consideration, in arriving at their actual value. . . . ” The only “other circumstance” mentioned by the court related to depreciation of the items. In the case at bar, opinions which made the evidence of original cost “relevant” were in the record. There was testimony both as to the shell of the structure and the miscellaneous items that the value had in fact appreciated. This testimony was not contradicted. Although it could be arbitrarily disregarded, the trier of fact would be left with the original cost. The fact that the jury could disregard it would not give them the license to invent evidence of depreciation and base their verdict on that. Nor does this fact that the jury could disregard the opinion evidence of appreciation somehow make the evidence of original cost “irrelevant” or insubstantial. The size of the verdict indicates that the jury’s award was not made on the basis of substantial evidence. That fact indicates that the jury was motivated by passion, prejudice, partiality or sympathy. The presence of these factors is also indicated by the fact that the jury arbitrarily disregarded opinion evidence of the value of other items destroyed in the fire. Although this fact is irrelevant on the substantial evidence issue, I feel it is relevant on the issue of bias. The opinion evidence was to the effect that plaintiffs’ total loss was conservatively in excess of $25,000.00. Since the jury’s verdict was based not on substantial evidence but on sympathy for a small child being sued by a keeper of gamecocks, I would reverse.