Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

McCarty v. Hall

Kentucky Court of Appeals · 1984 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureDamagesEvidencepersonal property damagefair market valuerepair billautomobile accidentdirected verdict

Facts

Hall was involved in an automobile accident with Steve Carty, who was driving a truck owned by McCarty. Hall sued, alleging Carty's negligence caused the accident and seeking damages for repairs, wrecker service, and loss of use of his automobile. The only evidence offered to support the damage claim was the repair bill and wrecker bill. McCarty objected to the repair bill, but the jury awarded Hall $1,592.14, the amount of the repair bill.

Issue

Whether, in a claim for damage to personal property, a repair bill standing alone and unassailed is sufficient evidence of the difference in fair market value to support a verdict, or whether expert testimony is required to establish that difference.

Rule

In Kentucky, the proper measure of damages for injury to personal property is the difference in the property's fair market value before and after the accident. A repair bill may be offered as evidence of that difference, and a repair bill standing alone and unassailed is probative evidence sufficient to sustain a verdict for damage to personal property.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Lexington, Jordan Pike sued Elena Torres after Elena backed a delivery van into Jordan’s parked motorcycle. At trial, Jordan offered a garage invoice showing $3,400 in repairs and no witness gave separate testimony about the motorcycle’s market value before and after the collision; Elena offered no evidence attacking the invoice.

If Elena moves for a directed verdict on the ground that Jordan failed to prove the proper measure of damages, how should the court rule?

Explanation. The governing measure remains the difference in the property’s fair market value before and after the accident. But the majority held that a repair bill may be offered as evidence of that difference, and when the repair bill stands alone and is unassailed, it is sufficient to sustain a verdict. Thus, no expert testimony is required on these facts. (Derived from McCarty v. Hall (n.d.).)