Douglas v. Prescott, 121 S.E. 689 (Ga. Ct. App. 1924). · Go Syfert
Search
Douglas v. Prescott, 121 S.E. 689 (Ga. Ct. App. 1924). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
26 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Letteer v. Archer (gactapp, 1981-11-13)
Treatment trajectory · 1924 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1924 1975 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Letteer v. Archer
Ga. Ct. App. · 1981 · signal: see · confidence high
See Douglas v. Prescott, 31 Ga. App. 684 (1) ( 121 SE 689 ); General GMC Trucks, Inc. v. Crockett, 145 Ga. App. 503 (2) ( 244 SE2d 78 ). “[I]n a case where the owner has undertaken to make proper and necessary repairs, he may, in establishing such damage, include such proper and necessary expenses, provided such items are the direct and proximate result of the collision, and represent the reasonable value of such necessary material and labor, and provided the aggregate of these amounts, together with hire on the machine while rendered incapable of being used, and the value of any additional …
cited Cited "see" Plaza Pontiac, Inc. v. Shaw
Ga. Ct. App. · 1981 · signal: see · confidence high
See Harrison v. Central Ga. Automotive Co., 31 Ga. App. 603 (3) ( 121 SE 689 ).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Joseph O. Parris v. St. Johnsbury Trucking Co., Inc.
2d Cir. · 1968 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Walsh v. Segale, supra, Douglas v. Prescott, 31 Ga.App. 684 , 121 S.E. 689 (1924), Mallinger v. Brussow, 252 Iowa 54 , 105 N.W.2d 626 (1960), Clanton v. Chrisman, 174 Okl. 425 , 51 P.2d 748 (1935), with Busser v. Sabatasso, 143 So.2d 532 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.), cert. denied 147 So.2d 530 (Fla.1962), Chapman v. Associated Transport, 218 S.C. 554 , 63 S.E.2d 465 (1951).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Douglas
v.
Prescott
14283.
Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Feb 27, 1924.
121 S.E. 689
Lee Douglas, for plaintiff., Spalding, MacDougald & Sibley, for defendant.
Stephens.
Cited by 22 opinions  |  Published
Stephens, J.

1. Where personal property is damaged by the tortious act of another, the measure of damages is the difference between the value of the property before the damage and afterwards. In a suit by the owner of personal property to recover the amount of its damage as the result of an alleged tortious act of another, the plaintiff, who has recovered a verdict in a certain amount, cannot complain that the court erred in charging the above rule as the true measure of the damages, and in not charging that the value of the repairs necessitated by the damage was the true measure.

2. This being a suit to recover for damage to the plaintiff’s automobile, sustained as a result of a collision with an automobile of the defendant, and there being evidence as to the value of the plaintiff’s automobile before and after the collision, and as to the character and the amount of the damage, and as to the value of the repairs, and there also being evidence authorizing an inference of negligence on the part of the plaintiff, the verdict found for the plaintiff was necessarily more or less uncertain as

to the amount found, and was necessarily the result of opinion and estimate upon the part of the jury, both as to value and as to the degree of negligence, and the plaintiff cannot complain that the evidence demanded a larger verdict in his behalf.

3. There being no evidence of any wilful, wanton, or malicious conduct on the part of the defendant in causing the damage to the plaintiff, the evidence did not authorize the jury to assess any amount as punitive damages; and the court therefore did not err in failing to present this issue to tlxe jury. Southern Ry. Co. v. Davis, 132 Ga. 812 (3) (65 S. E. 131).

4. The evidence authorized the inference that both parties were negligent, and the court properly adjusted its charge thereto.

5. All of the issues in the case were fairly submitted to the jury, and no error of law appears. The evidence supports the verdict rendered for the plaintiff, and the court did not err in overruling the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Bell, J., concur.