Court Opinion

ID: 9772358
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:15:21.597239+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:43.678818
License: Public Domain

On Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing.
Appellant has filed this motion for rehearing urging we reconsider our action in affirming the judgment of the trial court. In this motion he points out that in our opinion we stated Point Eight had not been briefed when it had been briefed in a Supplemental Brief filed with the Court.
Point Eight asserts that the trial court erred in admitting in evidence Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 1 over the objection it had not been properly proven up. Exhibit No. 1 is a statement of the cost of repairs to ap-pellee’s automobile.
Apparently the theory of appellant.is that the Exhibit was not properly proven because it is a statement of the cost of repairs and the test is the reasonable cost of making the repairs made necessary by the damage caused in the collision so long as the repairs do not enhance the value of the vehicle. There was, he says, not sufficient evidence to show the repairs were reasonable and necessary and that they did not enhance the value of the car.
The measure of damage in a case of this kind is the difference in the market value of the vehicle immediately before the accident and immediately thereafter, or, the reasonable cost of making repairs necessary to repair the damage so long as such does not increase (he market value.
We have reviewed the testimony and find that the man who made the estimate recorded his figures on Exhibit No. 1. The witness testified that on inspection of the car he found damage to the right rear and a bent left axle and the braking back plates. The damage on the right side was to the fender, right rear quarter panel and the door. The witness also testified the damage he noticed was fresh. He testified the charges he made were the reasonable prices charged in Houston at the time they were made. He testified the car was no more valuable after the repairs than before they were made.
The appellee testified there was no damage to these parts of her automobile before the collision.
Appellant says, however, this does not show the condition of the car “immediately” before or after the collision.
We are unable to agree with appellant. We think the evidence was sufficient to prove up Exhibit No. 1 as reflecting the reasonable and necessary costs of making the repairs so as to put the car in as good a condition as it was in prior to the collision. Too, we think the testimony shows when the witness was talking about enhanced value he was referring to the fact that “immediately” after the repairs the car was not worth more than it was immediately before the collision in its undamaged condition.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.