Tatone v. Chin Bing

MARKS, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment awarding plaintiff damages for injury to personal property. An automobile of defendant Bing struck a truck of plaintiff! loaded with fruit and vegetables which were destroyed in tfye accident. The trial court allowed plaintiff damages in the sum of $150 for the loss of the fruit and vegetables. The correctness of the award of this item of damage is the sole question presented on this appeal.

The agent of plaintiff had purchased the fruit and vegetables at a cost of $150, at a wholesale market in Fresno early on the morning of the accident. He was proceeding to his markets in the west part of Fresno County when tl}e accident occurred. Over the objection of defendants plaintiff and his agents were permitted to testify as to the cost of the fruit and vegetables. Defendants maintain that their objections to this evidence should have been sustained and that there is no proper evidence in the record as to the plaintiff’s damage caused by the destruction of the personal property in question here.

There can be no question but that the proper measure of damage in a case of this kind is the reasonable market value of the personal property destroyed.

(Murray

v.

South

[545]

ern Pacific Co.,

112 Cal. App. 150 [296 Pac. 667].) In an action for breach of contract to deliver personal property it has been held that evidence of the price paid in the open market for like property to supply deficiencies in the delivery was not material to plaintiff’s case in proving damage.

(Fairchild etc. Co.

v.

Southern Refining Co.,

158 Cal. 264 [110 Pac. 951], See, also,

Mattern

v.

Anderson,

18 Cal. App. 590 [123 Pac. 972].) In