JEREMY STRATTON; SCOTT BLAKE; AND MORRIS BLAKE v. ORLANDO GIANNINI
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: April 30, 1999; 2:00 p.m.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
C ommonwealth O f K entucky
C ourt O f A ppeals
NO.
1997-CA-003212-MR
JEREMY STRATTON;
SCOTT BLAKE; AND
MORRIS BLAKE
APPELLANTS
APPEAL FROM CHRISTIAN CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE EDWIN WHITE, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 96-CI-00659
v.
ORLANDO GIANNINI
APPELLEE
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE:
EMBERTON, GARDNER, AND MILLER, JUDGES.
MILLER, JUDGE:
Jeremy Stratton (“Stratton”), Scott Blake, and
Morris Blake (sometimes referred to as “appellants”), bring this
appeal from a final judgment of the Christian Circuit Court
entered on November 19, 1997, following a jury verdict awarding
the appellee, Orlando Giannini (Giannini) $9,949.00 for property
damage to his automobile.
We affirm.
On August 25, 1995, a truck driven by Stratton struck
the rear of a 1993 Oldsmobile Cutlass driven by Giannini.
Neither driver suffered physical injuries, but both vehicles were
damaged.
On July 24, 1996, seeking compensation for property
damage to his automobile, Giannini brought a civil action against
Stratton and the truck's legal owners--Scott Blake and Morris
Blake.
The appellants then filed a counterclaim seeking
compensation for damage to the truck.
During the trial (September 25, 1997), Giannini
attempted to establish the amount of property damage by
testifying as to the fair market value of his <93 Cutlass before
and after the accident.
Giannini indicated that--based on an
appraisal he received following the accident--the difference in
the fair market value of his vehicle was $9,949.00.
Ultimately,
the jury found Stratton solely responsible for the accident (100%
at fault) and awarded Giannini $9,949.00 for the damage to his
vehicle.
The appellants filed motions for a new trial and for
judgment notwithstanding the verdict, both of which were denied
by the trial court on November 19, 1997.
This appeal followed.
Upon appeal, appellants argue that Giannini failed to
properly establish the amount of damage to his automobile.
During trial, Giannini attempted to establish the amount of
property damage solely through his testimony.
Appellants
contend that the trial court erred by allowing Giannini to
testify about the fair market value of his vehicle.
More
specifically, they argue that Giannini was not competent to
testify as to the monetary amount of property damage to his
vehicle.1
1
Appellants have not appealed the jury's finding of
liability.
-2-
Generally, every person is assumed competent to
testify, and a witness may testify about all matters of which he
has personal knowledge.
Kentucky Rules of Evidence 601 and 602.
It is well-established that a witness may testify about the value
of his property, including a vehicle's fair market value.
General Exchange Insurance Corporation v. Branham, 296 Ky. 711,
178 S.W.2d 409 (1944), and Bruner v. Gordon, 309 Ky. 29, 214
S.W.2d 997 (1948).
As the Court stated in Carpenter v. Haydon,
Ky., 447 S.W.2d 351, 352 (1969):
This court has long taken the practical view
that an ordinary witness who testifies that
he knows the market value of an automobile is
competent to express his view of such value
and is not required to be an expert or have
special qualifications for that purpose
[citation omitted].
See also Sharaga v. Auto Owners Mutual Insurance Company, 831
S.W.2d 248, 252 (Mo. App. 1992)(holding that “owner is presumed
competent to testify as to the reasonable value of his personal
property prior to its damage or destruction without further
qualification”), and Glazer v. Quittman, 377 N.Y.S.2d 913, 914,
84 Misc.2d 561 (1975)(holding that owner is competent to testify
on value of automobile without any special knowledge of values
generally).
Appellants contend that Giannini was not competent
to testify about the post-accident value of his automobile
because he did not have personal knowledge of its fair market
value either before or after the accident.
We disagree.
In the case at bar, Giannini testified that he had
purchased his <93 Cutlass approximately two years before the
accident.
Shortly after the accident, the vehicle was appraised
-3-
to determine its value.
Based on the appraisal, Giannini
testified as to the Cutlass's fair market value.
He stated that
it had a value of $12,085.00 before the accident, that it was
sold for salvage for $2,136.00, and the resulting difference was
$9,949.00.
These amounts, he claimed, represented his opinion of
the vehicle's fair market value before and after the accident.
Although Giannini exhibited some confusion during his testimony,
this goes to the weight of the evidence, rather than to his
competency to testify.
We cannot say the trial court erred in
allowing Giannini's testimony and in finding him competent to
testify as to the Cutlass's value.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the
Christian Circuit Court is affirmed.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
Kenneth E. Dillingham
Elkton, Kentucky
Mark D. Alcott
Bowling Green, Kentucky
-4-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
