
    BERGSTROM v. MELLEN et al.
    No. 3470.
    Decided September 10, 1920.
    (192 Pac. 679.)
    1. Damages — 'Value oe Use oe Automobile May Be Recovered. In an action for damages to an automobile, the reasonable value of the use of the car in plaintiff’s business, of which use he was deprived by the injury complained of, may be recovered.
    
      2. Appeal and Eebok — Authorizing Damages not Stjppoeted by Evidence held Cubed by Yebdict. Error in permitting recovery of the use value of an injured automobile, when there was no evidence of such value, does not require a reversal, where the verdict was for less than the damages to the market value as shown by competent testimony,-so that it indicates the jury allowed nothing for loss of the use of the car.
    Appeal from District Court, Third District, Salt Lake County; J. Louis Brown, Judge.
    Action by Mack Bergstrom against J. W. Mellen and another. Judgment against defendant Meilen, and he appeals.
    AFFIRMED.
    
      Stewart, Stewart & Alexander, of Salt Lake City, for appellant.
    
      Booth, Lee, Badger <& Rich, of Salt Lake City, for respondent.
    
      Bagley, Fabian, Glendenin & Judd, of Salt Lake City, for defendant Utah Light & Traction Co.
   WEBER, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment awarding plaintiff damages for injuries to his automobile. The ease is controlled by the decision in Metcalf v. Mellen, 192 Pac. 676, just decided.

The evidence is substantially the same as that in the Met-calf Case, and the issues are the same; the only additional assignment of error by appellant being that in the instruction regarding the measure of damages the jury were informed that the plaintiff was entitled to recover “the reasonable value of the use of said car in the business of the plaintiff of which use, if any, he was deprived by the injuries complained of.” Tbe law was correctly stated in tbe instruction.

Tbe appellant calls attention to tbe fact that the evidence did not show that plaintiff’s business as a salesman was interfered with, or' that be suffered any damage by reason of being deprived of the use of tbe car, or that be personally was required to pay any money whatsoever in hiring another car. Respondent paid $125 to have his car repaired. It was shown that the car did not run after the accident as well as before. A competent witness testified that an accident by which the engine and vital machinery of an automobile are injured would depreciate the selling price of the car forty per cent, after all possible repairs had been made and that respondent’s car was worth $900 to $1,000 before the accident and $650 after all repairs had been made. The verdict was for $275.

The instruction should not have submitted to the jury an issue of the value of the use of the car, because there was no testimony upon that subject; but we do not think the jury could have been misled in any manner by this instruction. The verdict itself clearly indicates that the jury allowed nothing for the loss of the use of the car. 'The error was not prejudicial, and it was properly disregarded by the trial court when overruling the motion for a new trial.

The judgment is therefore affirmed, with costs.

CORFMAN, C. J., and FRICK, GIDEON, and THURMAN, JJ., concur.  