Walter Champion, Jr. appealed the denial of his motion for directed verdict on the issue of furniture, equipment, and inventory damages from total loss by fire, which led to a $77,033.06 verdict for Donna Dodson, individually, and d/b/a Catoosa Industrial Supply. Dodson sued Champion for failure to maintain the warehouse in a safe condition and for failure to have an adequate fire wall, causing the warehouse where she was a co-tenant to be totally burned when Walter Champion Company’s employee intentionally set the premises occupied by Dodson and by Walter Champion Company on fire to hide the employee’s embezzlement. Dodson sought damages for the destruction of the furniture, equipment, and inventory. Dodson failed to offer any evidence of the value of the furniture and equipment immediately prior to fire; however, she did provide some evidence as to the inventory value. Thus, some categories of damages were not proven, i.e., furniture and equipment, while inventory damages were proven, but the jury returned a lump sum verdict without distinguishing between the categories of damages. Finding error in the failure to grant a partial directed verdict as to damages for the furniture and equipment and being unable to separate the damage verdict, we reverse the damage award for a new trial on the issue of damages only leaving the verdict for liability unappealed. Champion contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for directed verdict on damages, because there was no evidence to establish the fair market value of the inventory, furniture, and equipment Dodson claimed to have lost. See Hagin v. Powers , 140 Ga. App. 300, 305 3 231 SE2d 780 1976. As to equipment and furniture, we agree but find that, as to the other damages, the motion was properly denied.
Where tangible personal property has been damaged or destroyed, the plaintiff has the burden of furnishing evidence sufficient to enable the jury to calculate the amount of damages with reasonable certainty without speculation. Day v. Piedmont Hotel, Inc. , 96 Ga. App. 215, 217-218 2 99 SE2d 513 1957 loss of earnings and commissions. Evidence of the retail purchase price of property alone is not sufficient to establish the fair market value of the property at the time of the loss, because the age and condition of the property, the fair market value at the time of loss, the condition immediately after the loss, and the fair market value immediately after the loss must be proven to establish the damages. See Portland Forest Prod. v. Garland Lumber Sales, Inc. , 199 Ga. App. 479, 480 1 405 SE2d 307 1991 affirmed grant of directed verdict for damages for lumber which could change in condition, which could affect value between purchase and destruction, and could not have been established as to fair market value from the purchase price;1 Messmore v. Roth , 185 Ga. App. 862 1 366 SE2d 318 1988 household goods and furniture, which were not new, fair market value prior to loss shown by the retail purchase price and condition at the time of total loss; Minit Chek Food Stores, Inc. v. Plaza Capital, Inc. , 135 Ga. App. 110, 111 3 217 SE2d 415 1975 a sign which had become used could not have its fair market value proved by the retail purchase price alone. For a used motor vehicle or other similar mechanical equipment, which depreciates with age, care, condition, and use, the retail purchase price alone is insufficient to prove damages, because the fair market value immediately prior to the loss will differ from the retail purchase price from depreciation alone. See Adams Refrigerated Exp. v. Ingol , 176 Ga. App. 457, 458 1 336 SE2d 289 1985 tractor-trailer used for hire. An opinion as to value based solely on cost price is inadmissible in evidence as it has no probative value. . . . Merely listing the damaged items, along with a monetary figure estimating replacement cost based entirely upon the original purchase price . . . is not sufficient evidence to establish damages under the law, as the cost of property alone is insufficient proof of market value. If coupled properly with other evidence such as a showing of the condition of the item both at the time of purchase and at the time its value is in issue, the cost price of an item may be admitted as an element upon which an opinion may be formed as to the item’s value. Citations and punctuation omitted; emphasis in original. Cunningham v. Hodges , 150 Ga. App. 827 1 258 SE2d 631 1979 directed verdict proper as to damages to furniture and household goods destroyed in a fire disapproved by Braner v. Southern Trust Ins. Co. , 255 Ga. 117, 122 335 SE2d 547 1985 “We find this rule too stringent where a homeowner or homeowner’s spouse testifies as to either the purchase price or replasement cost of household furnishings and others similar to it for several pratical reason.”
