Checkpoint Foreign Car Service, Inc. v. Sweeney

Finan, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. On March 22, 1966, Sweeney, the appellee, purchased a previously owned 1963 Austin Healy Sprite from a large dealer ²⁵³ in foreign automobiles, paying $900. The testimony reveals that the car was in good condition at the time of its purchase, that the appellee drove it between 5,000 and 6,000 miles, that he did not participate in any racing activities with it and that it was not involved in any accident. In addition, new tires were put on the car and Sweeney’s friend, Kennicott, performed both a valve job and a motor tune-up on it.

In September of that year, prior to leaving for military service in Texas, .Sweeney placed the automobile in the possession of Kennicott, instructing him to have the brakes repaired. After getting several estimates for brake repairs, Kennicott delivered the sports car to Checkpoint, the appellant, on the evening of October 17, 1966, after Checkpoint had closed for the day. Pursuant to instructions previously given Kennicott over the phone by Checkpoint, Kennicott parked the car on Checkpoint’s lot and delivered the keys to an attendant of the service station adjoining Checkpoint. There is evidence that the lot in which Kennicott parked Sweeney’s car is at the main intersection in District Heights and is well lit.

The car was missing from Checkpoint’s premises when Kennicott returned two days later to retrieve it, and the appellant was thus unable to deliver the car upon demand. Sweeney sued Checkpoint for negligent conversion of the automobile in permitting it to be stolen from its premises. The lower court denied Checkpoint’s motions for directed verdict and submitted the case to the jury, which returned a verdict in favor of Sweeney for ,$900. The sole issue raised by the appellant is that the court below erred in permitting the jury to determine the amount of loss absent legally sufficient evidence of market value.

However, we think the case was properly submitted to the jury. This Court has held that in an action for conversion of personal property, the measure of damages is the fair market value of the property at the time of the conversion, with legal interest running to the date of the verdict. See Saunders v. Mullinex, 195 Md. 235, 240 , 72 A. 2d 720, 722 (1950). Anyone familiar with the condition of the chattel, including its owner, is competent to testify as to its value.

Pennsylvania ²⁵⁴ Threshermen & Farmers’ Mutual Casualty Insurance Co. v. Messenger, 181 Md. 295 , 29 A. 2d 653 (1943). We believe that our predecessors on this Court have established the relevant facts for the jury to consider in