Court Opinion

ID: 9733290
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 17:01:18.278403+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:40.140681
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Flood, J.:
The jury found for the plaintiff for the price he paid for the automobile more than seven months before it was stolen. Under the law the limit of the plaintiff’s recovery was the value of the car on the date when it was stolen. If there had been no dispute as to this value, the court could and should have reduced the verdict to this sum. However, the value was disputed, the plaintiff’s expert valuing it at $2500 and the defendant’s expert testifying that it was worth approximately $2,000. The resolution of this dispute is for the jury, not the court. The jury has found that the defendant is liable to the plaintiff, but it has not determined the value of the automobile. In the absence of jury waiver, art. I, §6 of the Constitution prevents the court from determining this fact by resolving the conflicting testimony as to value.
While the court has merely directed a new trial in the event that a remittitur is not filed by the plaintiff, in effect its order compels the defendant to accept the plaintiff’s expert’s testimony as to value. This it has no right to do and is usurping the jury’s function when it does so.
*534I would grant a new trial as to damages only.
Montgomery, J., joins in this dissent.