## Facts

- Walter L. Hinton owned household goods (including furniture, bedding, and wearing apparel) allegedly destroyed by a fire started by sparks emitted from the defendant’s locomotive.
- Hinton sued the Birmingham Railway, Light & Power Company for damages for destruction of the goods.
- At trial, Hinton testified to the value of the destroyed goods based on his familiarity as the owner.
- On cross-examination, Hinton stated his valuation was based on what the goods cost “and what they are really worth.”
- The defendant argued Hinton offered no competent evidence of value and that damages should be limited to nominal damages.
- The trial court entered judgment for Hinton for more than nominal damages, and the defendant appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether an owner familiar with destroyed personal property is competent to give opinion testimony of its value sufficient to support more than nominal damages.
2. Whether an owner’s opinion of value is inadmissible or insufficient when the owner considers original cost as part of the valuation.
3. Whether used household goods kept for personal use must be valued strictly by market value, or may be valued by a “real intrinsic value” to the owner when market value is minimal or difficult to prove.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed the judgment.
- The owner’s familiarity with the goods provided an adequate foundation for opinion testimony on value, and the jury could rely on that testimony to award more than nominal damages.
- The record did not show the owner’s valuation was based solely on original cost; considering cost as part of the basis did not require exclusion or reduction to nominal damages.
- The Court indicated that, for used household goods kept for use rather than sale, market value is not necessarily the exclusive measure because such goods may have intrinsic value to the owner despite limited market value.

## Legal Principles

- An owner of personal property who is familiar with it is competent to testify to its value; such testimony can be sufficient evidence of value for the jury.
- An opinion of value is not incompetent merely because the witness considered original cost; exclusion is more likely only if the valuation is shown to rest solely on cost without independent judgment of present value.
- For used household goods kept for personal use, damages need not always be confined to strict market value; a factfinder may consider intrinsic value to the owner when market value is an inadequate measure.

## Conclusion

The court upheld an award of more than nominal damages for household goods destroyed by fire where the owner, familiar with the items, testified to their value, and his valuation was not shown to be based only on original cost; the court also recognized that used personal household items may warrant valuation beyond strict market value when intrinsic value better reflects loss.


Birmingham Ry., Light & Power Co. v. Hinton, 47 So. 576 (Ala. 1908)