Appeal from the County Court of DuPage County; the Hon.
WILLIAM L. GUILD, Judge, presiding. Affirmed upon filing
remittitur; otherwise, reversed and remanded.
The only issue in this case is the proper measure of damages where the cost of repairing personal property damaged in an accident exceeds the value of the property before the accident. The trial court heard the case without a jury and entered judgment for the plaintiffs in the amount of $399.93, which admittedly exceeds the value of their automobile before the accident, and the defendant appeals.
The parties jointly moved this Court to dispense with the filing on an abstract and the motion was allowed. The defendant filed his brief but no briefs were filed on behalf of the plaintiffs.
The parties have entered into a stipulation of facts which is as follows:
"1. On February 7, 1962, the plaintiffs were the owners of a 1953 Tudor Custom Ford with a standard transmission that had been driven 66,000 miles and was in A-1 condition.
"2. The plaintiffs' automobile was legally parked and was struck by the motor vehicle operated by the defendant who admitted responsibility for the accident.
"3. The plaintiffs incurred and paid the following bills as the result of the accident in question:
Towing .................... $ 30.00 Vehicle repairs ........... 333.62 Purchase of new tire ...... 36.31
"4. The only evidence introduced regarding the value of the automobile was that of the defendant's insurance appraiser and adjuster who testified that its value before the impact did not exceed $175.00 and its value afterwards was $50.00.
"He further testified that the then current Red Book of automobile values did not list the values of 1953 Ford automobiles, but that it did value a corresponding 1954 Ford in the amount of $150.00."
It further appears from the record that what the stipulation lists as a $30 bill for towing was actually a $10 charge for towing and a $20 charge for "storage."
The defendant claims that the proper measure of damages in this case is the difference between the fair market value of the vehicle immediately before the occurrence and the fair market value of the unrepaired vehicle immediately afterward. Even though the plaintiffs did not file a brief in support of their judgment, the Court will assume their contention to be that the costs of repair as shown by their paid receipts is the true measure of damages.
In Santiemmo v. Days Transfer, Inc., 9 Ill. App.2d 487, 502, 133 N.E.2d 539 (1st Dist 1956), it was stated:
"Where property has been injured by a defendant and can be repaired, the true measure of damages in the reasonable costs of repairs, providing that it is less than the value of the property before the injury. . . . The plaintiff could not recover the ...