## Facts

- In March 1988, Darryl J. Tschirn, Jr. received a new 1988 Chevrolet Camaro IROC as a gift; title was placed in his name.
- The sales receipt showed a total cash price (including tax and license) of about $22,489.99.
- Tschirn installed a stereo costing $600 and replaced the tires (value not shown in the proof at trial).
- On July 24, 1989, the Camaro was stolen in New Orleans, Louisiana, and the theft was reported to police.
- In August 1990, police located the Camaro partially dismantled and in the possession of Carl Jack Terrell, who owned a used-car and auto-salvage business in Magnolia, Mississippi.
- Terrell testified that when buying vehicles for salvage/parts he did not request title or proof of ownership, and that he could not be sure whether such vehicles were stolen.
- Trial testimony indicated Terrell had been looking for Camaro parts, and a person who had done business with Terrell knew of Terrell’s no-questions-asked approach and brought Tschirn’s Camaro to Terrell, who accepted it without inquiry.
- Terrell claimed the Camaro arrived already stripped, lacking mechanical parts, motor, and doors.
- On cross-examination, Terrell refused to give a hypothetical value for an operational 14-month-old Camaro, stating he would need to see the vehicle and know its condition.
- At trial, Tschirn introduced the original sales receipt and gave general testimony about caring for the car, but did not provide evidence of mileage, depreciation, condition at theft, comparable sales, or any market valuation at the time and place of conversion.
- The jury found for Tschirn on conversion and awarded $14,500 in damages. Terrell appealed, challenging the evidentiary basis for the damages award.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to allow the jury to reasonably and competently assess damages for conversion, measured by the Camaro’s fair market value at the time and place of conversion.

## Decision

- The Mississippi Supreme Court held the proof of value was insufficient to support the jury’s $14,500 damages award.
- The court reversed the judgment as to damages and remanded for a new trial on damages.

## Legal Principles

- Conversion is an intentional exercise of dominion or control over another’s personal property that seriously interferes with the owner’s rights.
- The usual measure of damages for conversion of personal property is the property’s fair market value at the time and place of conversion (often with interest).
- A damages verdict must rest on competent evidence; a jury may not set damages by speculation or guesswork.
- Original purchase price can be relevant to value, but standing alone—especially when separated in time from the conversion and without proof of mileage, condition, depreciation, or comparable market data—it may be inadequate to establish fair market value at the time and place of conversion.
- When the record lacks a reliable evidentiary basis to fix value, the proper remedy is a new trial on damages rather than affirmance of a number that cannot be tied to the proof.

## Conclusion

Terrell’s possession and dismantling of Tschirn’s stolen Camaro supported a conversion verdict, but the damages award could not stand because Tschirn offered only the original sales price and general testimony about the car, with no competent evidence of fair market value at the time and place of conversion; the case was remanded for a new damages trial.


Terrell v. Tschirn, 656 So. 2d 1150 (1995)