{ "id": 1712421, "name": "Paul E. THOMPSON v. W. D. VANLANDINGHAM", "name_abbreviation": "Thompson v. Vanlandingham", "decision_date": "1980-06-25", "docket_number": "CA 79-328", "first_page": "844", "last_page": "846", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "269 Ark. 844" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "600 S.W.2d 923" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.", "id": 13370, "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "14 S.W. 2d 230", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "178 Ark. 732", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1396904 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/178/0732-01" ] }, { "cite": "23 S.W. 2d 256", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "180 Ark. 857", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1393630 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/180/0857-01" ] }, { "cite": "204 Ark. 510", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1444229 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/204/0510-01" ] }, { "cite": "252 Ark. 513", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1629836 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/252/0513-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 285, "char_count": 3385, "ocr_confidence": 0.712, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.06457654481014144 }, "sha256": "0467847b9edfc0f089fca16078fd5636b0e4d338b0f0bce21d9eba14d5e2ad73", "simhash": "1:558de109342c7b5e", "word_count": 575 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:52:47.346821+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Newbern, J., concurs." ], "parties": [ "Paul E. THOMPSON v. W. D. VANLANDINGHAM" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "George Howard, Jr., Judge.\nThe sole issue to be determined is whether the judgment of the court, sitting without a jury, awarding appellee $913.77 for damages sustained to his 1969 Opel Kadette as a consequence of a collision involving a vehicle driven by the appellant, is supported by substantial evidence.\nIt is settled law that an appellate court in testing the sufficiency of the evidence must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the appellee, and all doubts are to be resolved and inferences drawn in his favor. Industrial Park Businessmen\u2019s Club, Inc. et al v. Buck, 252 Ark. 513, 479 S.W. 2d 842.\nThe appellee, who was the owner of the Opel Kadette and who is an automotive mechanic engaged in the repair business, testified extensively about the condition of his vehicle before the accident as well as after and concluded that it would cost between $900.00 and $1,000.00 to repair the damages sustained to the automobile and that the cost represented the difference in the value before and after the accident. It is clear that an owner\u2019s testimony as to the value of his property is admissible. Payne v. Mosley, 204 Ark. 510, 162 S.W. 2d 889; Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Chase, 180 Ark. 857, 23 S.W. 2d 256; Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Edwards, 178 Ark. 732, 14 S.W. 2d 230.\nWe hold that there is substantial evidence to sustain the holding of the trial court and, accordingly, we affirm.\nAffirmed.\nNewbern, J., concurs.", "type": "majority", "author": "George Howard, Jr., Judge." }, { "text": "David Newbern, Judge,\nconcurring. Although I agree with the result and the basis for it stated by the majority, I believe the appellant\u2019s points for reversal should be addressed.\nThe appellant contends the trial court erred in admitting into evidence a repair estimate of $913.77 (the amount of the judgment) which the appellee had obtained from Billington Buick, Inc. The appellee contended it was admissible because of Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 28-1001, Rule 703 (Repl. 1979). The rule states:\nThe facts or data in the particular case upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to him at or before the heaing. If of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject, the facts or data need not be admissible in evidence.\nWhile Rule 703 permits an expert to base his opinion upon \u201cfacts or data,\u201d it does not permit him to present another expert\u2019s opinion, which is what occurred here. Thus, I agree with the appellant that the trial judge erred in allowing the appellant to submit the Billington estimate with his testimony. However, I find the error was harmless.\nThe appellant\u2019s second point for reversal is. that the court erred in basing its decision upon the improperly admitted evidence. In his findings, the court referred to the Billington estimate as the \u201cbest evidence\u2019of the measure of damages. Regardless of the court\u2019s apparent reliance upon the erroneously admitted evidence, I cannot say the lower court\u2019s judgment was clearly erroneous or clearly against the preponderance of the evidence, A. R. Civ. P., 52 (a), given the appellant\u2019s own testimony to which the majority opinion refers.", "type": "concurrence", "author": "David Newbern, Judge," } ], "attorneys": [ "Sam Ed Gibson, P.A., for appellant.", "'William W. Benton, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Paul E. THOMPSON v. W. D. VANLANDINGHAM\nCA 79-328\n600 S.W. 2d 923\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered June 25, 1980\nReleased for publication July 8, 1980\nSam Ed Gibson, P.A., for appellant.\n'William W. Benton, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0844-01", "first_page_order": 882, "last_page_order": 884 }