Steuart Motor Co. v. Allied Towing Service

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Steuart Motor Co. v. Allied Towing Service

256 A.2d 420, 1969 D.C. App. LEXIS 294

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 7, 1969

DocketNo. 4639

StatusPublished

This text of 256 A.2d 420 (Steuart Motor Co. v. Allied Towing Service) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District of Columbia Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Steuart Motor Co. v. Allied Towing Service, 256 A.2d 420, 1969 D.C. App. LEXIS 294 (D.C. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant repaired appellee’s tow truck on two separate occasions and claimed a total of $542.92 for such repairs¹ and $86.56 for auto parts sold and delivered to appellee. Appellee agreed to pay the bill for the parts but contended that appellant’s work on the first occasion was negligently and improperly done so as to require a return of the truck for additional repairs which had not been originally required. In addition, appel-lee claimed damages resulting from loss of proceeds from the rental of the truck to the District of Columbia for use as a snow removal vehicle.

The court below heard testimony from both parties and entered judgment for appellant in the amount of $325. Appellant argues that the mathematics of the case establish that the amount of the judgment was unsupported by the evidence. That is, if the trial court found for appellant, as it did, it was required to award damages either in the amount of $542.92, the total claimed by appellant, or $442.92, that amount less $100 which would credit appellee with loss of use of its truck.

We do not view the evidence of this case as demanding a judgment in the exact amount of the damages claimed. The workmanship of appellant was in dispute at trial and the trial court could reasonably have found that not all the repairs were properly made. Therefore, although the trial court could conclude that appellant was entitled to recover for some of the [421]*421work it performed its recovery need not be in the full amount claimed. We conclude that there was a reasonable basis in the evidence for the trial court’s computation. See R. S. Willard Co. v. Columbia Van Lines Moving and Storage Co., D.C.App., 253 A.2d 454 (1969).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant repaired appellee’s tow truck on two separate occasions and claimed a total of $542.92 for such repairs¹ and $86.56 for auto parts sold and delivered to appellee. Appellee agreed to pay the bill for the parts but contended that appellant’s work on the first occasion was negligently and improperly done so as to require a return of the truck for additional repairs which had not been originally required. In addition, appel-lee claimed damages resulting from loss of proceeds from the rental of the truck to the District of Columbia for use as a snow removal vehicle.

The court below heard testimony from both parties and entered judgment for appellant in the amount of $325. Appellant argues that the mathematics of the case establish that the amount of the judgment was unsupported by the evidence. That is, if the trial court found for appellant, as it did, it was required to award damages either in the amount of $542.92, the total claimed by appellant, or $442.92, that amount less $100 which would credit appellee with loss of use of its truck.

We do not view the evidence of this case as demanding a judgment in the exact amount of the damages claimed. The workmanship of appellant was in dispute at trial and the trial court could reasonably have found that not all the repairs were properly made. Therefore, although the trial court could conclude that appellant was entitled to recover for some of the [421]*421work it performed its recovery need not be in the full amount claimed. We conclude that there was a reasonable basis in the evidence for the trial court’s computation. See R. S. Willard Co. v. Columbia Van Lines Moving and Storage Co., D.C.App., 253 A.2d 454 (1969).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.2d 420, 1969 D.C. App. LEXIS 294, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steuart-motor-co-v-allied-towing-service-dc-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack