WPC Rsy-nQxubςV0NA ޽CJDWng"gXěgD^T MD/Fw9yAe@ n⬶|#y#_t>dE=fM7Rf;kbeNPO﹢:Gz=| m Qk ubtiXL:H9N[҈7$uMR· Џg$a)esѩ楥 ٔYz6yҥtP@>Mp'T%' ­Ew ȥpJ[h7[^Qê|35mc_Xd=9i4JPso"p#_9Sz'IQvp<'rF\V}tlYoY?EZxqwx*ۄ݈aJ%& wb#\ % ^ # 0/ UN w 4 z  i x mz 0D   a 'UNN;=g&Edb 0 B 0 D3t D- 0K ASr 08 0D A HP LaserJet 8000 Series PS0vh+ (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regularm~g+n0  C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xU(#$  0  Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular R$      1  x   _Mufflers,Inc.isMasterMufflerscorporatenameandisthenameddefendantinthisaction. ] R$      2  x   _TheliabilityofMufflers,Inc.isnotatissueonappeal.ThetrialcourtheldMufflers,Inc.100%atfaultin  causingthedamagetoMr.McPeaksengine,andthepartiesdonotcontestthatdecision. Z R$      3  x   _Thecosttoinstalltheengine,thecostofthesupplies,andtheamountofsalestaxarenotcontestedonthis  appeal.Theonlyvalueatissueisthe$1091.68thatthecourtassignedtotheengine.  R$      4  x   _Attrial,Mr.McPeakobjectedtoMr.Hopperstestimonyregardingthereplacementcostoftheengine,  maintainingthetestimonywasbasedonhearsay.Thecourtoverruledtheobjection,statingthatMr.Hopperwasan t expert,andtherefore,couldrelyonhearsaytestimony. - -(|G2$ !.8WTd d 8         0  : d(|3N$ !.8WTd d 8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3N$ !.8WTd d 8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8D<d d8     _  8*XXdd 8  @ !INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON#! #Ԉ &   September17,2001Session L X|X #XX|#EDDIEMCPEAKv.MUFFLERS,INC.X|X  J @@ DirectAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforMadisonCounty  J @@No.C00270RogerA.Page,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.W200100471_COA_ԄR3CVFiledNovember7,2001   AV) ` dE<|` A }     ThisappealconcernstheproperamountofdamagesduetothePlaintiffaftertheDefendantdamaged x  theengineinthePlaintiffs1970DodgeChallenger.Threewitnessesprovidedtestimonyonthe d properamountofdamagesthatshouldbeawardedtothePlaintiff.Thetrialcourtutilizedthe P testimonyoftheDefendantsexpertwitnessinassessingdamages.ThePlaintiffappealsthetrial < courtsjudgment,assertingthattheDefendantswitnessreliedonuntrustworthyinformationin (x forminghisexpertopinion.Forthereasonssetforthbelow,weaffirmthejudgmentofthetrial d court. P  #XX|e#X|XTenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtAffirmed;and ( Remanded     #X|#X|X.DavidR.Farmer,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichAlanE.HighersandHollyK.  Lillard,J.J.,joined.  DavidA.Riddick,Jackson,Tennessee,fortheappellant,EddieMcPeak. ` GarryR.WilkinsonandRussellC._Rutledge_,Memphis,Tennessee,fortheappellee,Mufflers,Inc. 8!  d OPINION #XX|#X|X #`" #XX| #  X|X    EddieMcPeakistheownerofa1970DodgeCharger.Thevehicle,aclassic musclecar, $8 $ waspoweredbya340V8engine.Mr.McPeakmaintainedtheoriginalengineinthevehicleand %$!% hadtheenginerepairedonseveraloccasionstokeepitworkingproperly.InDecember1999,Mr. &"& McPeakdrovethecartoMasterMufflerinJackson,Tennesseeinordertogetanewmuffler '"' installed.WhenMr.McPeakreturnedtopickupthevehicle,itfailedtooperate.Afterinspecting (#( thevehicle,Mr.McPeakdeterminedthatMasterMufflerhaddamagedtheengine. )$)   p*%*>   Subsequently,Mr.McPeaksuedMufflers,Inc.  #  1      ׀intheCircuitCourtofMadisonCounty.At   trial,threewitnessesgavetestimonyontheissueofdamages.T  #  2      ׀Thefirstwitness,Mr.McPeak,  testifiedthatareplacementenginefora1970DodgeChallengerwouldcost$3,400.Mr.McPeak  arrivedatthisvaluebycontactingacompanyinCaliforniaandrequestinganestimate. t   Mr.McPeaksotherwitnessondamageswasJamesMickeyGrant.Mr.Granthad L   refreshenedtheengineinthepastandgaveexperttestimonyregardingthereplacementcostofthe 8  engine.Mr.Granttestifiedthathedidnotknowwhereonecouldlocatea340engine;therefore,he $ t statedthata360enginewouldbetheproperenginereplacementinMr.McPeaksDodgeCharger.  ` Mr.Grantstatedthatthe360enginecosts about$3,500.Mr.Grantarrivedatthisfigureby  L  consultingbooksthatcontainedenginesandtheirprices.  8    Mufflers,Inc.produceditsownexpertwitness,RobertHopper,toaidthecourtinassessing   damages.Mr.Hoppertestifiedthatarebuilt340V8enginewouldcost$1,091.68.Toarriveatthis   figure,Mr.Hoppertestifiedthathecontactedthreeautomobilepartsstores.Twoofthestoresstated   thattheycouldsupplyMr.Hopperwiththeengine.Thesecondofthetwo,MotorPartsand   Bearings,gavetheestimateof$1,091.68thatMr.Hopperquotedattrial. p   ThetrialcourtheldMufflers,Inc.liabletoMr.McPeakforthedamagedengine.Thecourt H awardedMr.McPeakdamagesintheamountof$1877.76.Thecourtbaseditsawardontheprice 4 ofarebuiltengine($1091.68asgivenbyMr.Hopper),thecosttoinstalltheengine($600)  #  3      ,the  p suppliesnecessarytoreplacetheengine($35.00),andtheapplicablesalestax($151.08).  \   Mr.McPeakappealsthisaward,raisingthefollowingissueforourreview: 4   Didthetrialcourtjudgecorrectlyassessplaintiffsdamages?     Totheextentthisissueinvolvesquestionsoffact,ourreviewofthetrialcourtsrulingis de  novo withapresumptionofcorrectness.Tenn.R.App.P.13(d).Wemaynotreversethetrial  courtsfactualfindingsunlesstheyarecontrarytothepreponderanceoftheevidence. Id .With l respecttothetrialcourtslegalconclusions,ourreviewis denovo withnopresumptionof X  correctness. Bainv.Wells ,936S.W.2d618,622(Tenn.1997). D!   Mr.McPeaktakesexceptiontothetrialcourtsvaluationofthevehiclesengine.Mr. #l! McPeakcontendsthatthetrialcourterredbyrelyingonMr.Hopperstestimonyastothevalueof $X" theengine,statingthatMr.HopperstestimonyfailedtocomplywithRule703oftheTennessee $D # RulesofEvidence.Mr.McPeakarguesthattheonlycredibleevidencethatillustratestheengines  valueishisowntestimony,orthetestimonyofMr.Grant.Thus,Mr.McPeakargues,thetrialcourt  couldnothavevaluedthevehiclesenginebelow$3400.00.    InTennessee,trialcourtspossessagreatdealofdiscretionwhenadmittingorexcluding ` evidence;accordingly,appellatecourts,absentaclearabuseofdiscretion,willnotinterferewitha L  trialcourtsevidentiaryrulings. TireShredders,Inc.v.ERMNorthCentral ,15S.W.3d849,958 8  (Tenn.Ct.App.1999).Further,trialjudgeshavewidediscretionregardingthequalificationsof $ t expertwitnesses. Otisv.CambridgeMut.FireIns.Co. ,850S.W.2d439,443(Tenn.1992).In  `  Otis ,ourSupremeCourtstatedthatonewhogivesexperttestimonymustbe particularlyskilled,  L  learned,orexperiencedinascience,art,trade,business,professionorvocation.Theexpertmust  8  possessathoroughknowledgeuponwhichhetestifiesthatisnotwithinthegeneralknowledgeand $  experienceoftheaverageperson. Id. (citing Kinleyv.TennesseeStateMut.Ins.Co. ,620S.W.2d   79,81(Tenn.1981)).Additionally,Rule702oftheTennesseeRulesofevidencegovernsthe   testimonyofexperts.Rule702statesthat [i]fscientific,technical,orotherspecializedknowledge   willsubstantiallyassistthetrieroffacttounderstandtheevidenceortodetermineafactinissue,a   witnessqualifiedasanexpertbyknowledge,skill,experience,training,oreducationmaytestifyin p theformofanopinionorotherwise.Tenn.R.Evid.702.Thebasesofanexpertsopinion \ testimonyaregovernedbyRule703oftheTennesseeRulesofEvidence.Rule703statesasfollows: H  ` Thefactsordataintheparticularcaseuponwhichanexpertbasesanopinion  p orinferencemaybethoseperceivedbyormadeknowntotheexpertatorbeforethe  \ hearing.Ifofatypereasonablyrelieduponbyexpertsintheparticularfieldin H formingopinionsorinferencesuponthesubject,thefactsordataneednotbe 4 admissibleinevidence.Thecourtshalldisallowtestimonyintheformofanopinion   orinferenceiftheunderlyingfactsordataindicatelackoftrustworthiness.   Tenn.R.Evid.703.    OverMr.McPeaksobjection,thetrialcourtacceptedMr.Hopperasanexpertinthefield l ofautomobilemechanics.Thoughitisnotclearfromhisbrief,Mr.McPeakappearstochallenge X  thisevidentiaryruling.Fromourreviewoftherecord,wefindnofaultinthetrialcourtsdecision D! toacceptMr.Hopperasanexpert.Atthetimeoftrial,Mr.Hopperworkedasanautomobile,truck, 0"  andheavyequipmentspecialistatGABRobbins,anindependentinsuranceadjustmentagencyand #l! investigationservice.Mr.Hopperinvestigatedandinspectedautomobileenginesonadailybasis. $X" Further,Mr.HoppersdutieswithGABRobbinsincludedtheestimationofautomobilerepairs, $D # whichheperformedonafrequentbasis.Finally,Mr.Hopperhadpreviousexperienceasan %0!$ automobilemechanic,andheownedanautomobileshopanddealershipinthepast.Inlightofthese &"% qualifications,thetrialcourtdidnoterrinacceptingMr.Hopperasanexpert. '#&   Mr.McPeakscentralargumentisthatMr.Hopperstestimonyregardingthecosttoreplace )$( theenginewas toospeculative,untrustworthy,andwasnotbaseduponanycredibleevidence.Mr. |*%) McPeakassertsthattheunderlyingfactsanddatausedbyMr.Hopperinhistestimonywere h+&* untrustworthy,andtherefore,inviolationofRule703oftheTennesseeRulesofEvidence.  #  4      ׀We  cannotagreewithMr.McPeaksposition.    Mr.Hopperconcludedthatareplacementenginewouldcost$1091.68.Oncross t examination,Mr.HopperstatedthatDannyMilamatMotorPartsandBearingsquotedthepriceof ` theengine.Further,Mr.Hopperstatedthatheobtainedthisinformationinthesamewayhe L  normallydoes,bycallingabusinessandmakingsurethecompanycansupplytheengineforthe 8  quotedprice.Mr.McPeakfailedtoelicittestimonyfromMr.Hopperindicatingthatthedataorfacts $ t thatMr.Hopperrelieduponwereuntrustworthy.Additionally,Mr.McPeakfailedtodemonstrate  ` tothetrialcourtthatthequotewasunreliableorthatotherexpertsinthefieldwouldconducttheir  L  examinationsdifferently.TheonlyobjectionthatMr.McPeakmadetothetestimonywasahearsay  8  objection.Mr.McPeakdidnotquestionthetestimonyinanyotherway.Basedontherecordbefore $  us,wecannotdeterminethatMr.Hopperstestimonywasuntrustworthy.Therefore,weconclude   thatthetrialcourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretionbyadmittingthetestimonyofMr.Hopper.     Asageneralrule,thepropermeasureofdamagesforthelossordestructionofpersonal   propertyisthemarketvalueofthepropertyatthetimeofitslossordestruction. Reidv.State ,9 p S.W.3d788,794(Tenn.Ct.App.1999).Initsdiscretion,thetrialcourtproperlyconcludedthatthe \ costtoreplacetheenginewouldbe$1091.68.Mr.Hoppertestifiedthatthiswasthecostofarebuilt H 340engine.EvidenceattrialillustratedthatMr.McPeaksenginehadbeenrebuilt,repairedand 4  refreshenedinthepast.Therefore,weconcludethatthetrialcourtdidnoterrinitsdamageaward  p toMr.McPeak.  \   Accordingly,weaffirmthedecisionofthetrialcourt.Thecostsofthisappealaretaxedto 4 theappellant,Mr.McPeak,andhissurety,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.      `     h     ___________________________________     `     h     DAVIDR.FARMER,JUDGE