Majority
p. 482SACHS v. BORDEN’S CONDENSED MILK CO. (Supreme Court, Appellate Term. November 11, 1910.) Argued before SEABURY, PAGE, and BIJUR, JJ.
Headnote
Evidence (§497[1] )—Opinion Evidence—Evidence op, Damages.Testimony by one who purchased four wagons four years before, one being secondhand, that a wagon, damaged in a collision, was worth $850 before the accident and $500 thereafter, was speculative, and not competent evidence of damages.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Evidence, Cent. Dig. §§ 2285-2288; Dec. • Dig. § 497.*]
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of the Bronx, Second District.
Action by Abraham Sachs against Borden’s Condensed! Milk Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Reversed, and new trial ordered.
Thomas M. Rowlette (F. Herbert Wadsworth, of counsel), for appellant.
Julius D. Tobias, for respondent.
Plaintiff sues for damage done to his wagon by á wagon of the defendant, negligently driven by one of its employés. Assuming that there is evidence on which the court could! find that the accident was caused by the negligence of the defendant, and that the plaintiff
p. 483
was free from contributory negligence, there is no competent evidence of damage, and that which was given was all duly excepted to. Plaintiff’s witness, on this point, stated that he had purchased four vans, two of them four years ago, one of which was secondhand, and that the wagon damaged in the case at bar was worth $850 before the accident andl $500 after the accident.' Such testimony is manifestly fanciful and speculative. Mendleson v. Van Rensselaer, 118 App. Div. 516 , 103 N. Y. Supp. 578 .
Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.
Cases cited
- Mendleson v. Van Rensselaer 118 App. Div. 516 p. 483