Court Opinion

ID: 9520776
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:49:43.797577+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:46:54.638700
License: Public Domain

Thompson, C. J.
(specially concurring) — I concur in the result reached by the majority opinion, and with the reasoning therein except as to Division II, with which I am unable to agree.
In Uhlenhopp v. Steege, 233 Iowa 368, 371, 372, 7 N.W.2d 195, we held that we would take judicial notice that the value of a Plymouth automobile, about one year old at the time of the accident, was in excess of the sum of $253.24, the amount of the necessary repairs. From this, we went further in Fischer v. Hawkeye Stages, 240 Iowa 1203, 1212, 37 N.W.2d 284, by applying the same rule to repairs to a 1937 Oldsmobile about nine years old when it was damaged. We there held we would take judicial notice that the value of the car was not less than $285, the proven repair bill. We there said (page 1213 of 240 Iowa, page 290 of 37 N.W.2d) that “the matter may not be entirely free from doubt.”
The majority now hold that judicial notice will be taken that the value of a tractor and trailer from four to five years old does not exceed the cost of repairs in the sum of $739.71. Judicial notice is defined as “the cognizance of certain facts which judges and jurors may properly take and act on without proof because they already know them.” 31 C. J. S., Evidence, section 6, page 509.
For myself, I do not know what the value of the tractor and trailer described here may have been at the time of the collision. We are not told how many miles they had traveled or what condition of repair and upkeep they were in. The conditions referred to in the Fischer case, supra, when used motor vehicles were selling at very high prices, do not now obtain. The majority opinion leads us into the field of determining values without any evidence of what they may have been. It does away with the necessity for counsel to prove his ease by proper evidence and settled rules of law. It takes judicial *326notice of something which is not common knowledge. I believe that even an expert on motor-vehicle values would want to know something of the number of miles traveled and the general condition of this tractor and trailer before giving an opinion as to its value.
I have concurred in the result because of the failure of appellant to assign errors as required by Rule of Civil Procedure 344(a) (3).
Hays, J., joins in this special concurrence.