## Facts

- Thomas B. Sykes’s 1986 Jaguar XJ6 was damaged in a collision at Church Street and Georgia Highway 85 in Clayton County, Georgia.
- Sykes sued Nin Sin and Chann Song seeking recovery for property damage to the vehicle.
- At trial, Sykes testified to the car’s fair market value immediately before the collision (about $9,000–$10,000) and immediately after (about $1,000).
- Sykes based his valuation opinions on his familiarity with the car, review of classified ads for similar vehicles, conversations with other owners, and his assessment of the damage; he did not obtain expert appraisals or actual junkyard offers.
- Sykes also offered evidence relating to repair costs, loss of use, and diminution in value.
- The trial court granted a partial directed verdict for defendants, ruling Sykes failed to prove post-collision fair market value and could not use the “before-and-after value” measure of damages; the jury was limited to considering repair cost, loss of use, and diminution in value.
- The jury found for Sykes on liability but awarded zero damages; the trial court denied Sykes’s motion for new trial.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by granting a partial directed verdict on the ground that Sykes failed to prove immediate post-collision fair market value, thereby barring the “difference in value before and after” measure of damages.
2. Whether the trial court erred in denying a new trial where the jury found liability but awarded zero damages after the damages proof was restricted.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the partial directed verdict limiting Sykes’s damages theory.
- The court held Sykes’s owner testimony provided sufficient evidence of pre- and post-collision value to submit diminution in value to the jury.
- The court reversed the denial of the motion for new trial and remanded for a new trial on damages, leaving the jury’s liability finding intact.

## Legal Principles

- Property damage to an automobile is special damage and must be proved to be recovered.
- In automobile damage cases, a plaintiff may recover either (a) reasonable repair costs plus loss of use and permanent impairment (not exceeding pre-injury fair market value) or (b) the difference between fair market value immediately before and immediately after the injury.
- An owner is competent to give opinion testimony on the value of the owner’s property; deficiencies in the basis for the opinion generally affect weight and credibility, not admissibility or legal sufficiency.
- A directed verdict is proper only when, viewing the evidence with reasonable inferences, the evidence demands a particular verdict; some competent evidence of value creates a jury question on damages.

## Conclusion

Because Sykes’s owner-opinion testimony was legally sufficient to create a jury issue on post-collision value and diminution in value, the trial court improperly removed the “before-and-after” measure of damages from the jury, and the resulting zero-damages verdict required a new trial on damages.


Sykes v. Sin, 493 S.E.2d 571 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997)