ÿWPC¶ 4# èU Dó %7 0(= 0”e4ù w@$d 0Dd D3¨U@Ûe 0D 0J`ƪ 0Tp AQÄ 0D 0^Y 0h· 0r 0|‘ 0† 0“ 1u# 0d˜ 0@ü B< D/Y Bˆ B)¥ DCÎ AM U*^ ݈ v~evÓã˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ8§ÖhZŠ,Century-WP RegularX($¡¡(D(2´¤$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóóäzz!3|xl  b c Ee f g Eh Ui Uj Uk Ó€l (#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó&&&&'ÿÿdxd ɸ·`(ZapfCalligr BTTT(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  ÔƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 52" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô$(Cþÿ<< Cÿÿ($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò d**'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd% Line 7 d----7Border 1dd$.Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial ÓÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  Ýò òÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÔ€0ÔÔ eee ÔFILEDÔ€0XÔó óÌò òÔ€0¼ÔÔ"USú ú, úÔÔ ƒ ÔÔ!  Ôó óÔ€0XÔÌÌò òCecil€Crowson,€Jr.Ô€Ôó óÔ  ÔÌÔ€ÂÔÔ€0ÔÔ eee Ôò òAppellate€Court€Clerkó óÔ  ÔÔ€ÔÔ€XÔPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  inion Geneva ÒÒ  inion Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  Ý›Ò  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑœÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›à@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSONÌ__________________________________________________________ÌÌÌRAINBO€BAKING€COMPANY€OFà àà àà àShelby€Chancery€No.€101675„3ÌLOUISVILLE,€a€Delaware€Corporation,à àC.A.€No.Ï02A01„9510„CH„00223Ì̜ـÙÙ€ÙßL€/1.;+'h|úÿòâ `€€Lß›à àPlaintiff,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àHon.€D.€J.ÏAlissandratosÌvs.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌRELEASE€COATINGS€OF€ÌTENNESSEE,€INC.,ÌÌà àDefendant.ÌÌROBERT€L.€CRAWFORD€and€JONATHAN€LAKEY,€Wyatt,€Tarrant€&€Combs,ÏMemphis,€Attorneys€for€Plaintiff.ÌÌKAREN€R.€CICALA,€Memphis,€Attorney€for€Defendant.ÌÌœò òòòMODIFIED€AND›€œAFFIRMEDó óóó›ÌÌOpinion€filed:Ì__________________________________________________________ÌÌò òTOMLIN,€Sr.€J.ó óà@ àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÓÓÔ€Ôà àRainbo€Baking€Company€of€Louisville€(ð ðRainboðð)€filed€suit€in€theÏChancery€Court€of€Shelby€County€against€Release€Coatings€of€Tennessee,ÏInc.€(ð ðReleaseðð)€seeking€compensatory€damages€from€Release€for€damagesÏallegedly€sustained€by€Rainbo€as€a€result€of€the€improper€straightening€ofÏa€large€quantity€of€baking€pans€used€by€it€in€its€bakery€business.€€The€suitÍcontained€a€count€in€negligence€and€a€count€in€breach€of€contract.€€ReleaseÏfiled€a€counter„claim€seeking€to€recover€from€Rainbo€the€balance€due€itÏfor€work€performed.€€Following€a€bench€trial,€the€court€issued€an€opinionÏfrom€the€bench.€€In€this€opinion€the€court€found€that€upon€the€evidenceÏpresented,€Release€was€liable€to€Rainbo.€€However,€the€court€specificallyÏstated€that€it€did€not€find€that€Rainbo€had€carried€its€burden€of€proof€as€toÏdamages.€€The€court€ordered€a€reference€to€the€Master€to€give€Rainbo€anÏopportunity€œto€present›€additional€proof€as€to€damages,€with€Release€beingÏgiven€an€opportunity€to€present€countervailing€proof€if€desired.€FollowingÏthe€Masterððs€hearing,€a€report€was€submitted€to€the€chancellor€in€whichÏthe€value€of€Rainboððs€pans€was€stated.€€The€Masterððs€report€was€affirmedÏand€judgment€entered€thereon€in€favor€of€Rainbo.€€The€chancellorÏdismissed€the€counter„claim€of€Release€against€Rainbo.€€Release€hasÏraised€three€issues€on€appeal:€did€the€chancellor€err€in:€(1)€awarding€aÏjudgment€against€Release€when€Rainbo€failed€to€prove€its€case;€(2)€theÏmanner€of€determining€the€amount€of€damages€sustained€by€Rainbo;€and€(3)Ïfailing€to€find€for€Release€on€its€counter„claim.€€For€the€reasonsÏhereinafter€stated,€we€œmodify€and€affirm€the€trial€court.€€ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àMost€if€not€all€of€the€facts€are€not€in€dispute.€€Rainbo,€a€multi„stateÏbaking€company,€producing€as€one€of€its€principal€products€loaves€ofÍbreads,€entered€into€an€oral€contract€with€Release,€through€David€Long,ÏReleaseððs€owner€and€president.€€The€agreement€called€for€Release€to€clean,Ïreglaze€and€straighten€one€thousand€two€hundred€and€seventy„eightÏ(1,278)€one€and€a€half€pound€King€Pullman€baking€pans€and€four€hundred€andÏthirty„two€(432)€one„pound€bread€pans.€€At€the€time€this€agreement€wasÏmade,€David€Long€requested€of€Charles€Jackson,€the€Ñ7€ÍzXXdðXXdð7Ñdirector€ofÏmanufacturing€at€Rainbo,€that€he€be€provided€two€of€the€best€pans€thatÏRainbo€had€in€its€possession€for€Release€to€use€as€a€sample,€from€whichÏdies€would€be€made€for€the€straightening€of€the€one€and€a€half€poundÏbaking€pans.€€Jackson€removed€two€of€the€pans€from€Rainboððs€productionÏline€and€gave€them€to€Long,€advising€him€that€all€of€the€pans€were€in€aboutÏthe€same€shape.€€At€that€time,€unbeknownst€to€Jackson,€Rainbo€held€in€itsÏpossession€several€new€pans€which€were€not€offered€to€Release.€ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àThe€pans€were€delivered€by€Rainbo€to€Release€for€straightening.€ÏAfter€the€job€was€completed€Release€returned€the€pans€to€Rainbo.€€A€shortÏwhile€thereafter€Rainbo€contacted€Release,€advising€it€that€Rainbo€wasÏhaving€difficulty€with€the€pans€sticking€together€when€stacked,€as€well€asÏbeing€unable€to€place€the€same€number€of€loaves€of€baked€bread€on€theÏbread€trays€as€before.€€Officials€of€Release€traveled€to€Louisville€and€metÍwith€representatives€of€Rainbo.€€Release€offered€to€rework€the€pans€aÏsecond€time.€€A€representative€of€Release€inquired€of€Rainbo€if€there€wereÏany€new€pans€available€that€might€be€used€as€a€pattern€for€a€new€die.€ÏRainbo€advised€that€such€a€pan€was€available€and€presented€it€to€Release.€€ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àThe€pans€were€reworked€a€second€time€and€returned€by€Release€toÏRainbo.€€A€few€months€thereafter€Rainbo€contends€that€pin€holes€and€smallÏcracks€begin€to€appear€in€the€pans.€€Discussions€followed€between€theÏparties€wherein€Rainbo€contended€that€the€pans€had€been€improperlyÏstraightened€by€Release€and€were€thus€rendered€unsatisfactory€for€use€inÏits€baking€operations.€€Release€denied€it€had€caused€any€damages€to€Rainbo.€ÏAt€this€time,€Rainbo€owed€Release€a€balance€of€four€thousand€one€seventy„nine€dollars€and€six€cents€($4,179.06)€on€its€agreement.€€The€parties€wereÏunable€to€resolve€their€differences€and€this€litigation€followed.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àThis€case€proceeded€to€trial.€€The€complaint€was€filed€in€July€1992.€ÏThereafter,€an€answer€and€subsequently€an€amended€answer€along€with€aÏcounter„complaint€was€filed€by€Release.€€While€written€interrogatoriesÏwere€filed,€there€were€no€depositions€taken€and€no€preliminary€motions€byÏRainbo.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àAt€trial,€Rainbo€presented€witnesses€who€testified€as€to€bothÔ€Ô€theÏliability€of€Release€as€well€as€the€monetary€damages€incurred€by€it€as€aÏresult€of€Releaseððs€improper€straightening.€€Thereafter€Release€put€on€itsÏproof€in€opposition€to€claims€of€liability€as€well€as€damage€allegedlyÏcaused€by€it.€€At€the€close€of€all€the€proof€there€were€no€motions€by€RainboÏfor€any€delay.€€Following€argument€of€counsel€the€court€announced€itsÏruling.€€The€court€proceeded€at€some€length€in€reviewing€the€proof€offeredÏas€to€the€issue€of€liability€of€Release,€with€emphasis€given€to€the€proofÏoffered€by€Rainbo.€€The€court€then€stated:ÌÓÓÌà8 àSo€the€Court€finds€that€indeed€the€plaintiffs€have€shown€thatÏthe€defendants€did€not€properly€reform€theses€pans,€and€thenÏwhen€they€did€properly€reform€them€the€second€time€in€termsÏof€dimensions€that€because€and€as€a€proximate€result€of€theÏfirst€over€expansion€thatcaused›€the€premature€wear€and€tearÏon€these€pans€that€caused€them€to€become€useless.€€Therefore,Ïjudgment€in€favor€of€the€plaintiffs€must€be€rendered€againstÏthe€defendants.ÌÌà8 àNow,€the€question€is€as€to€the€value.€€òòThe€Court€does€not€findÏthat€the€plaintiffs€carried€the€burden€of€proof€of€fair€marketÏvalue.€€What€the€plaintiff€have€shown€is€this€is€what€it€costsÏus.óó€€Now,€the€plaintiffs,€which€is€to€the€defendantððs€advantage,Ïhave€said€that€it€only€has€a€four€year€life€span,€a€48€month€lifeÏexpectancy,€and€they€will€be€held€to€that€for€a€futureÏproceeding.€€The€reason€thatððs€advantageous€is€becauseÏobviously€that€means€for€14€months€a€large€percentage€of€itsÏuse€has€occurred.€€But€itððs€not€a€straight€mathematicalÏprogression.€€It€may€be€for€purposes€œof€dealing›€with€the€IRS,Ïbut€itððs€not€in€this€Courtððs€opinion€sufficient€to€deal€with€theÍreal€world,€which€is€just€like€the€very€second€you€drive€thatÏbrand€new€car€off€the€showroom€itððs€depreciated.€€You€put€oneÏmile€on€it,€youððve€owned€it€for€all€of€five€minutes€and€it€hasÏdepreciated€a€whole€lot€more€than€one€mile€in€five€minutes.€ÏòòAnd€the€Court€does€not€find€that€the€plaintiff€carried€thatÏburden€of€proof.óó€€(emphasis€added)ÌÌà8 àWhat€the€Court€will€do€is€an€order€of€reference€to€the€Master€inÏorder€that€the€plaintiff€can€get€proper€expert€testimony€onÏthat,€if€possible,€to€reveal€the€true€fair€market€value.ÌÌÌÓÓà àSubsequently,€counsel€for€Release€inquired€of€the€court€as€to€whatÏexactly€was€being€referred€to€the€Master.€€The€court€responded:ÌÓÓÌà8 àð ðFair€market€value€as€of€the€date€that€these€pans€were€finallyÏtaken€out€of€services€when€they€could€not€be€used€any€longer.€.€.Ï.ððÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€court€thereafter€proceeded€at€great€length€to€explain€to€counselÏfor€Rainbo€just€what€type€of€proof€heð"ðthe€courtð"ðwas€seeking.€€Counsel€forÏRelease€objected,€stating:ÌÓÓÌà8 àœÌà8 àMS.›€RENNIESEN:€Your€Honor,€I€would€object€to€anymoreÏtestimony€by€any€other€witnesses,€thatððs€what€the€purpose€ofÏthe€trial€is€for.€€The€plaintiffs€had€every€opportunity€„„ÌÌà8 àœÌà8 àTHE›€COURT:€I€understand€that€and€I€accept€the€fact€that€youÏobject.€€But€I€can€do€that€in€terms€of€an€order€of€references.€ÏThis€is€a€Court€of€equity.€€The€Court€has€that€discretion€to€doÍthat.ÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€court€then€concluded€his€ruling€as€follows:ÌÓÓÌà8 àBut€the€burden€is€on€the€plaintiffs,€now.€€If€the€plaintiff€canððtÏcarry€that€burden€before€the€Master,€then€they€will€walk€awayÏwith€nothing.€€The€burden€is€on€them.€€By€the€same€token,€thatÏdoesnððt€mean€itððs€a€one„way€street.€€Your€client€has€theÏopportunity€to€put€on€countervailing€proof.ÌÌÌÓӜ̛à àIn€the€counter„complaint€filed€by€Release€the€chancellor€found€inÏfavor€of€Rainbo.€€He€also€declined€to€award€prejudgment€interest.€€At€theÏsubsequent€hearing€before€the€Master,€Rainbo€presented€one€witness€as€anÏexpert.€Release€presented€two€witnesses.€€The€Master€found€that€ð ðthe€fairÏmarket€value€of€the€œgoods›€in€question€(baking€pans)€on€February€1991€wasÏ$19,904.85.ðð€€The€chancellor€affirmed€the€Masterððs€report€and€enteredÏjudgment€for€Rainbo€in€this€amount.€€ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àBack€to€the€original€hearing.€€As€to€the€issue€of€Releaseððs€liability€toÏRainbo,€in€our€opinion,€while€the€proof€in€this€case€is€quite€close,Ïnonetheless€we€affirm€the€chancellor.€€We€also€are€of€the€opinion€that€theÏproof€does€not€preponderate€against€the€holding€of€the€chancellor€thatÏRelease€should€not€recover€on€its€counterclaim.€€ÌÓÓ€ÌÓÓà àAfter€finding€for€Rainbo€on€the€issue€of€liability,€the€chancellor€thenÏproceeded€to€find€that€Rainbo€had€ò ònotó ó€carried€its€burden€of€proof€as€to€theÏdamages,€and€the€reference€to€œthe›€Master€followed.€€We€feel€that€thereÏwas€a€clear€abuse€of€discretion€by€the€chancellor€in€ordering€a€referenceÏto€a€Master€for€a€retrial€of€the€issue€of€damagesÔ€Ô€and€that€the€judgment€asÏto€damages€must€be€reversed.€€ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àThe€chancellor€has€the€prerogative€within€the€bounds€of€discretionÏto€order€a€€€reference€to€a€Master.€€In€the€case€before€us,€it€is€not€so€muchÏthe€question€of€the€right€of€the€chancellor€to€order€a€reference€herein€thatÏconcerns€this€court€as€it€is€that€by€virtue€of€ordering€such€a€œreference,›ÏRainbo,€in€effect,€received€a€ð ðnew€trialðð€or€ð ðanother€bite€at€the€appleððÏbecause€it€was€allowed€to€re„present€its€case€regarding€the€issue€ofÏdamages€after€it€had€previously€failed€to€do€so.€€As€noted,€there€was€neverÏa€motion€by€Rainbo€to€continue€the€case€or€reopen€the€case€in€order€toÏobtain€a€second€chance€to€produce€proof€as€to€its€damages.€ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àAt€the€trial€itself,€Rainbo,€a€commercial€baking€company€operatingÏin€at€least€three€statesð"ðKentucky,€Tennessee,€and€Georgiað"ðpresented€twoÏwitnesses€on€the€issue€of€damages.€€The€first€was€Charles€Jackson,€theÍplant€manager€of€the€Atlanta,€Georgia€bakery.€€He€testified€that€after€itÏwas€discovered€that€the€pansò ò€ó óstraightened€by€Release€would€not€work,ò òÏó óRainboò ò€ó óbought€replacement€pans€at€a€price€of€thirty€dollarsÔ€Ô€and€twentyÏfive€cents€($30.25)€each€and€that€the€one€thousand,€two€hundred€andÏseventy€eight€(1,278)€pans€thus€replaced€would€have€cost€thirty€eightÏthousand,€six€hundred€sixty€nine€dollars€and€thirty€cents€($38,669.30).€ÏRainboððs€counsel€could€not€qualify€this€witness€to€permit€him€to€testify€asÏto€the€value€of€the€pans€at€the€time€of€the€straightening€process€byÏRelease.€€This€was€the€sum€and€substance€of€Jacksonððs€testimony.€€ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àThe€second€and€final€witness€offered€by€Rainbo€was€RobertÏThompson,€the€comptroller€of€Rainbo€at€its€home€office€in€Louisville,ÏKentucky.€€Thompson€testified€that€he€was€familiar€with€the€records€ofÏthe€company€and€that€the€replacement€pans€were€in€fact€acquired€at€a€costÏof€thirty€dollars€and€twenty€five€cents€($30.25)€each.€€While€theÏchancellor€allowed€Thompson€to€testify€that€the€pans€were€sixteen€monthsÏold€at€the€time€they€were€worked€on€by€Release€and€that€they€had€aÏdepreciated€value€of€about€ð ðtwenty€seven€thousand€dollarsðð€($27,000.00),ÏThompson€testified€that€he€had€never€participated€in€selling€pans€forÏplaintiff€and€that€he€had€no€idea€what€the€fair€market€value€of€the€pansÍwould€have€been€just€prior€to€their€straightening.€€The€chancellor€held€thatÏThompson€was€not€qualified€to€testify€as€to€the€fair€market€value€of€theseÏpans€due€to€a€lack€of€experience€and€knowledge€in€buying€and€selling€breadÏpans.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àWhile€such€testimony€was€offered€by€yet€another€witness€at€theÏhearing€before€the€Master,€there€was€never€any€contention€or€proof€to€theÏeffect€that€this€witness€was€not€readily€available€at€time€of€trial€or€thatÏsomehow€the€burden€of€proof€as€to€damages€placed€upon€Rainbo€caught€itÏby€surprise.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àIn€the€opinion€of€this€court€our€decision€in€this€matter€is€supportedÏby€the€case€of€òòHiggins€v.€Steideóó,€335€S.W.2d€533,€47€Tenn.€App.€42€(Tenn.ÏApp.€1959).€€While€the€facts€are€somewhat€different€in€the€two€cases,€theÏlegal€principles€enunciated€in€òòHigginsóó€are€applicable€to€the€case€underÏconsideration.€€òòHigginsóó€arose€as€a€result€of€plaintiff€suffering€injuries€andÏdamages€when€struck€by€defendantððs€following€vehicle.€€One€of€theÏwitnesses€to€the€accident,€known€to€both€parties,€was€a€wrecker€driver,Ïwho€was€towing€a€vehicle€on€the€highway.€€During€the€course€of€the€trial€itÏbecame€apparent€that€defendant€was€not€going€to€call€the€driver€of€theÏwrecker€as€a€witness,€as€anticipated€by€plaintiff.€€The€trial€began€on€JuneÍ8th€and€the€parties€closed€their€proof€shortly€thereafter€on€June€10th.€€ForÏits€own€reasons€the€court€continued€the€case€until€Monday,€June€16th.€ÏDuring€this€interim,€counsel€for€plaintiff€had€located€the€wrecker€driver€inÏChicago,€had€flown€there,€taken€the€witnessðð€statement€as€to€how€theÏaccident€occurred€and€provided€him€with€train€fare€and€a€schedule€thatÏwould€get€him€to€Memphis€by€Monday€morning€in€time€for€the€trial.€€On€thatÏSunday€evening€prior€counsel€for€plaintiff€received€a€special€deliveryÏletter€from€the€witness€advising€him€that€he€could€not€come€to€MemphisÏand€be€in€court.€€Counsel€for€plaintiff€proceeded€on€that€Monday€morning€toÏexplain€to€the€court€all€that€had€happened€and€asked€the€court€to€continueÏthe€case€to€the€following€Wednesday€and€to€reopen€the€case€for€proof.€ÏAfter€considerable€argument,€the€court€granted€plaintiffððs€counselððsÏrequest€to€continue€the€case€two€more€days€to€the€following€Wednesday,Ïwith€the€court€announcing€that€ð ðthe€case€will€either€proceed€with€suchÏproof€as€he€tenders€to€the€court€in€rebuttal€or€the€case€will€proceed€as€itÏwould€have€proceeded€this€morning.ðð€€€€ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àCounsel€for€plaintiff€flew€to€Chicago€and€brought€the€witness€backÏon€the€plane€and€had€him€in€Memphis€to€testify€on€Wednesday€the€16th.€€OnÏthat€morning€there€was€further€argument€between€both€counsel€and€theÍcourt.€€The€court€advised€plaintiffððs€counsel€that€there€had€been€noÏsuggestion€made€at€trial€the€week€before€about€any€further€proof.€ÏNonetheless,€the€court€stated€that€it€was€within€its€discretion€to€allowÏsuch€actions€and€stated€to€the€jury€that€the€case€would€be€reopened€forÏthe€purpose€of€presenting€what€should€be€considered€rebuttal€proof.€€TheÏwitness€testified€in€open€court.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àIn€finding€that€the€trial€court€had€abused€its€discretion€in€reopeningÏthe€òòHigginsóó€case,€court€in€its€opinion€noted:€ÌÓÓÌà8 àThe€record€showsð"ðand€the€learned€Trial€Judge€was€certainlyÏaware€of€the€record€so€showing,€that€Mr.€Ewing,€one€of€theÏcounsel€who€filed€this€suit€and€was€associated€then€in€theÏtrial,€attended€the€trial€of€Mr.€Higgins€had€in€City€Court€andÏfrom€the€record€made€of€the€traffic€trial€in€City€Court€counselÏfor€plaintiff€was€well€aware€long€before€the€declaration€wasÏfiled€that€there€was€in€fact€a€wrecker,€with€an€automobileÏattached€to€it€at€the€scene€when€this€accident€occurred.€€ThisÏcourt€stated€that€plaintiffððs€counsel€was€aware€of€theÏdiligence€required€of€him€to€have€located€the€witness€had€heÏdesired€to€do€so€and€had€him€present€during€the€trial.€ÌÌÌIn€conclusion€this€court€stated:ÌÌÌà8 à[œT]o›€approve€such€procedure€will€establish,€in€our€opinion,€suchÏa€precedent€that€could€lead€to€undue€prolongation€of€the€trialÏof€cases€to€the€congestion€of€court€dockets€and€embarrassmentÏof€litigants€and€trial€courts.ÌÌà8 àWe€doubt€that€it€is€within€the€exercise€of€sound€discretion€toÏcontinue€a€case€for€the€reopening€of€proof,€under€theÏcircumstances€shown€by€this€record.€.€.€in€our€opinion€there€canÏbe€no€justification€for€continuing€a€case€and€reopening€theÏproof€under€the€facts€here€disclosed.ÌÌÌÓÓThis€court€then€stated€that€ð ðthe€Court€did€unduly€extend€his€judicialÏdiscretion€in€so€doing.ððÌÓÓÌÓÓà àA€more€recent€case€quite€similar€to€òòHigginsóó€is€that€of€òòGerrety€Co.,ÏInc.€v.€Louis€W.€Palmieri,€et€al.óó,€526€A.2d€555€(Conn.€App.€1987),€whereÏplaintiff€lumber€company€brought€suit€against€defendant€seeking€toÏrecover€for€goods€sold€and€delivered.€€Defendant€counterclaimed€forÏdamages€resulting€to€his€home€from€the€installation€of€allegedly€defectiveÏmaterials.€€After€a€jury€trial,€plaintiff€was€awarded€damages€on€itsÏcomplaint€and€defendant€was€awarded€damages€on€his€counterclaim.€€TheÏcourt€granted€plaintiffððs€motion€to€set€aside€the€verdict€for€the€defendantÏagainst€plaintiff€and€gave€judgment€for€plaintiff€on€both€the€complaint€andÏthe€counterclaim.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àDuring€a€recess€following€the€termination€of€direct€examination€ofÏdefendant€by€defense€counsel,€the€trial€judge€informed€defense€counselÏthat€he€had€failed€to€introduce€the€necessary€evidence€of€diminished€valueÍof€the€house.€€When€court€reconvened€defense€counsel€moved€to€reopen€asÏdirect€examination.€€The€trial€court€sustained€plaintiffððs€objections€to€theÏmotion.€€No€evidence€of€the€diminished€value€of€the€house€was€everÏintroduced.ÌÌà àIn€Connecticut,€case€law€has€established€that€damages€involved€inÏreal€property€are€limited€to€the€diminished€value€of€the€property€wheneverÏthe€cost€of€restoration€is€dramatically€larger€than€the€difference€in€value.€ÏIn€òòGerretyóó€defendant€in€effect€testified€that€the€cost€of€restoration€wouldÏbe€dramatically€larger€than€the€difference€in€value€and€it€would€not€beÏeconomically€feasible€to€make€the€restorations.€€ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àIn€affirming€the€action€of€the€trial€court€in€refusing€to€reopen€theÏproof,€the€Connecticut€Court€of€Appeals€stated:ÌÓÓÌà8 àThe€defendant€did€not€present€any€testimony€during€his€case€inÏchief€as€to€the€diminution€of€value€of€the€house.€€He€attemptedÏto€reopen€his€case€only€after€the€court€alerted€him€to€theÏdefect€in€his€case.€€Whether€or€not€a€trial€court€will€permitÏfurther€evidence€to€be€offered€after€the€close€of€a€partyððsÏcase„in„chief€is€a€matter€resting€within€its€sound€discretion.€.Ï.€.€As€the€defendant€had€been€given€a€full€and€fair€opportunityÏto€present€his€case,€we€conclude€that€the€court€did€not€abuseÏits€discretion€in€not€allowing€him€to€reopen€his€examinationÏafter€being€alerted€of€his€omissions.ÌÌÌÓÓà àIn€sum,€there€is€nothing€in€this€record€to€the€effect€that€Rainbo€wasÏunaware€of€its€burden€of€proof.€€It€was€well€represented€by€counsel.€€ThereÏwere€no€ð ðhiddenðð€or€ð ðreluctantðð€witnesses.€€Rainbo€simply€failed€toÏestablish€the€fair€market€value€of€its€pans€prior€to€their€straightening,Ïalong€with€their€diminished€value€afterwards.€€The€chancellorððs€action€inÏpermitting€a€retrial€on€the€issue€of€damages€was€an€injustice€to€theÏdefendant.€€Nominal€damages€may€be€recovered€where€a€cause€of€action€forÏa€legal€wrong€is€established€but€there€is€no€proof€of€actual€damage.€ÏòòWomack€v.€Wardóó,€186€S.W.2d€619€(Tenn.€App.€1945).€€Only€nominal€damagesÏare€recoverable€for€the€wrongful€conversion€or€detention€of€personalÏproperty,€in€the€absence€of€proof€of€actual€damage€or€of€the€value€of€theÏproperty.€€òòLay€v.€Baylesóó,€44€Tenn.€246,€4€Cold.€246€(Tenn.€1867).ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àHowever,€under€these€circumstances,€Rainbo€is€entitled€to€nominalÏdamages.€€Accordingly,€exercising€our€inherent€right€to€do€so,€we€awardÏRainbo€nominal€damages€in€the€amount€of€one€dollar€($1.00).Ìà àWhile€we€are€of€the€opinion€that€this€case€should€have€beenÏconcluded€with€the€hearing€before€the€chancellor,€nevertheless€we€feelÏconstrained€to€examine€the€testimony€offered€at€the€hearing€held€by€theÏMaster,€œand€accordingly€reach€the€same€result.€€As€directed€by€theÍchancellor,€the€hearing€was€ordered€for€the€purpose€of€Rainbo€finding€andÏpresenting€expert€testimony€as€to€ð ðfair€market€value.ðð€€For€this€purpose,ÏRainbo€presented€only€one€witness,€Russell€Bundy,€Jr.,€southeast€salesÏmanager€for€Pan„Glow/American€Pan€Company,€a€company€providing€goodsÏand€services€in€competition€with€Release.€€ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àBundy€testified€that€in€1991€he€was€provided€with€several€pans€byÏRainbo€that€had€been€straightened€and€restraightened€the€second€time€byÏRelease.€€He€stated€that€these€pans€showed€the€effects€of€the€twoÏstraightening€efforts.€€Bundy€testified€that€assuming€in€1991€new€1€ððÏpound€King€Pullman€pans€sold€for€thirty„one€dollars€and€fifteen€centsÏÔ€Ô($31.15)€each,€considering€the€condition€of€the€pans€that€he€observed,Ïthose€pans€would€be€worth€approximately€50%€of€the€value€of€a€new€pan,Ïor€50%€of€thirty„one€dollars€and€fifteen€cents.€€Multiplying€1,278€of€suchÏpans€by€this€amount,€he€stated€the€total€value€of€the€pans€involved€wouldÏbe€nineteen€thousand,€nine€hundred€and€four€dollars€and€eighty„five€centsÏ($19,904.85).€€òòBundy€was€qualified€as€an€expert€on€the€value€of€bakeryÏpans€by€virtue€of€his€preliminary€testimony.óóÌÓÓÌÓÓà àBundyððs€evaluation€in€this€regard€was€based€upon€his€inspection€ofÏseveral€of€the€subject€pans€that€had€already€been€straightened€twice€byÍRelease.€€He€admitted€that€he€did€not€and€had€not€at€any€time€seen€any€ofÏRainboððs€baking€pans€ò òprioró ó€to€them€being€sent€to€Release€forÏstraightening.€€ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àOn€cross€examination€by€Releaseððs€counsel,€Bundy€was€presentedÏwith€one€of€Rainboððs€used€pans€that€was€later€identified€by€David€Long,€theÏowner€of€Release,€without€contradiction,Ô€Ô€to€be€one€of€the€better€pansÏprovided€to€Release€by€Rainbo€to€serve€as€a€model€for€the€making€of€theÏdie€to€be€used€in€the€straightening.€€More€importantly,€this€particular€panÏhad€not€been€straightened€by€Release.€€Bundy€testified€that€this€pan€wasÏworth€seven€to€eight€dollars,€and€was€in€such€a€condition€that€he€wouldÏnot€attempt€to€straighten€it.€€ÌÌà àIn€this€state,€the€ordinary€and€basic€measure€of€damages€for€injuryÏto€personal€property€is€the€difference€between€its€market€valueÏimmediately€before€and€immediately€after€the€injury.€€òòIrving€Pulp€andÏPaper,€Ltd.€v.€Dunbar€Transfer€and€Storage€Co.óó,€732€F.2d€511€(6th€Cir.Ï1984);€òòYazoo€and€M.€V.€R.€Co.€v.€Williamsóó,€185€S.W.2d€527,€529€(Tenn.Ï1945);€òòTennessee€Jurisprudenceóó,€Damages,€ðð€18,€page€42.€€ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àIn€his€direct€examination€which€was€designed€to€establish€ð ðvalueðð,Írather€than€testifying€as€to€the€fair€market€value€of€Rainboððs€sixteenÏmonth€old€pans€ò òprioró ó€to€Releaseððs€straightening,€Bundy€mistakenlyÏreferred€to€the€cost€of€new€pans€that€had€not€experienced€the€trauma€ofÏthe€baking€process€for€sixteen€months.€€As€a€result,€Bundy€failed€toÏprovide€Rainbo€with€what€it€needed€mostð"ðnamely,€the€fair€market€value€ofÏRainboððs€sixteen€month„old€pans€prior€to€being€straightened€by€Release.Ì›ÓÓÌÓÓà àMoreover,€in€considering€Bundyððs€testimony€in€its€totality,€includingÏboth€direct€and€cross„examination,€he€did€in€essence€testify€as€to€both€theÏð ðbeforeðð€and€ð ðafterðð€value€of€Rainboððs€pans,€but€with€an€unintended€result.€ÏAfter€examining€a€Rainbo€pan€identified€without€contradiction€as€beingÏone€of€its€best€at€the€time€that€this€contract€was€entered€into,€and€thatÏhad€not€undergone€either€straightening€process,€Bundy€testified€that€thisÏpan€had€a€value€of€seven€to€eight€dollars.€€He€had€earlierÔ€Ô€testified€that€theÏvalue€of€Rainboððs€pan€after€two€œstraightenings›€by€Release€had€a€value€ofÏfifteen€dollars€and€fifty„seven€cents€($15.57)Ô€Ô.€€The€net€effect€of€thisÏtestimony€is€that€the€pans€of€Rainbo€were€in€such€a€condition€that€theirÏvalue€was€enhancedð"ðalmost€doubledð"ðby€virtue€of€the€straighteningÏprocess€performed€by€Release€and€that€Rainbo€suffered€no€loss.€€Once€againÏRainbo€failed€to€carry€its€burden€of€proof€as€to€damages.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€awarding€RainboÏdamages€in€the€amount€of€nineteen€thousand,€nine€hundred€and€eighty„fiveÏcents€($19,900.85)€is€œmodified.€€Rainbo›€is€in€lieu€thereof€awarded€nominalÏdamages€in€Ìthe€amount€of€one€dollar€($1.00).€€The€decree€of€the€chancellor€is€in€allÏother€respects€affirmed.€€Costs€in€this€cause€are€taxed€one€half€to€RainboÏand€one€half€to€Release,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.Ô€Ôà àÌÌÓÓÏà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àTOMLIN,€Sr.€J.ÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àCRAWFORD,€P.J.à àà àà à(CONCURS)ÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àFARMER,€J.à àà àà à(CONCURS)Ì