Sherman Matthews v. UPS Store Center 3138, E2020-00255-COA-R3-CV

Sherman Matthews paid The UPS Store (Center 3138) to pack and ship a stereo receiver and purchased the custom packing materials recommended by the store clerk; the clerk re‑packed the item.
Royal Camera Service notified Matthews that the receiver arrived damaged.
Matthews sued the UPS Store and the clerk in general sessions court and obtained a favorable verdict. He appealed to the Circuit Court seeking a new trial.
At the circuit court trial, Matthews offered his testimony, two affidavits from a Royal Camera Service employee, and photographs of the damage; the trial court excluded the affidavits as hearsay and the photographs for lack of authentication.
At the close of Matthews’s proof the court granted an involuntary dismissal under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 41.02(2) for failure to prove damages. Matthews appealed the evidentiary rulings.
The Court of Appeals held that even if the excluded affidavits had been admitted, they would not have supplied the necessary proof of the amount of damages (no repair costs, no before/after market values, no loss‑of‑use evidence; an invoice referenced in an affidavit was not in the record).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of Royal Camera Service affidavits and photographs	Affidavits are business records (Tenn. R. Evid. 803(6)) and photographs authenticated; should have been admitted	Affidavits are hearsay and photographs lack proper authentication	Evidence exclusion reviewed for abuse of discretion; even if affidavits admissible, their admission would not change outcome, so exclusion harmless
Sufficiency of proof of damages to avoid involuntary dismissal	Matthews argued the damage existed and affidavits/photos would show loss deserving compensation	Defendants argued plaintiff failed to present proof quantifying damages (repair cost, diminution in value, or loss of use)	Matthews failed his burden to prove the amount of damages; involuntary dismissal properly granted

Biscan v. Brown, 160 S.W.3d 462 (Tenn. 2005) (standard of review for evidentiary decisions—abuse of discretion)
Pankow v. Mitchell, 737 S.W.2d 293 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987) (appellate relief requires showing that erroneous exclusion would have affected outcome)
City of Columbia v. C.F.W. Constr. Co., 557 S.W.2d 734 (Tenn. 1977) (if plaintiff fails to make case by preponderance, judgment may be rendered against plaintiff)
Discover Bank v. Morgan, 363 S.W.3d 479 (Tenn. 2012) (burden of proving damages rests on the party seeking them; must lay foundation for assessment)
Prewitt v. Brown, 525 S.W.3d 616 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2017) (measuring property damage: repair cost plus loss of use or difference in fair market value)
Tire Shredders, Inc. v. ERM‑N. Cent., Inc., 15 S.W.3d 849 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999) (difference in fair market value as a damages measure)
Maddux v. Cargill, Inc., 777 S.W.2d 687 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989) (owner may testify to value of personal property)