Mt. Vernon Telephone Co. v. Patrick

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Mt. Vernon Telephone Co. v. Patrick

293 S.W.2d 731

DecidedSeptember 21, 1956

StatusPublished

This text of 293 S.W.2d 731 (Mt. Vernon Telephone Co. v. Patrick) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mt. Vernon Telephone Co. v. Patrick, 293 S.W.2d 731 (Ky. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Motion by the Mt. Vernon Telephone Company for an appeal from a judgment of the Rockcastle Circuit Court, in favor of William M. Patrick, for $647.21, representing an award for damage to Patrick’s automobile in a highway collision. It is contended there was not proper proof of damages.

The proof showed only the market value of the car before the collision, and the cost of repairs. The verdict was for the cost of repairs, which was some $50 less than the pre-collision value. It was error for the court not to require proof as to the market value of the car immediately after the collision. However, we feel that this error was not prejudicial to the substantial rights of the appellant because the nature and extent of the damages were such as to warrant the conclusion that the car had only a junk value in its damaged condition.

The motion for appeal is overruled and the judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Motion by the Mt. Vernon Telephone Company for an appeal from a judgment of the Rockcastle Circuit Court, in favor of William M. Patrick, for $647.21, representing an award for damage to Patrick’s automobile in a highway collision. It is contended there was not proper proof of damages.

The proof showed only the market value of the car before the collision, and the cost of repairs. The verdict was for the cost of repairs, which was some $50 less than the pre-collision value. It was error for the court not to require proof as to the market value of the car immediately after the collision. However, we feel that this error was not prejudicial to the substantial rights of the appellant because the nature and extent of the damages were such as to warrant the conclusion that the car had only a junk value in its damaged condition.

The motion for appeal is overruled and the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

293 S.W.2d 731, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mt-vernon-telephone-co-v-patrick-kyctapp-1956.