Thе plaintiff’s 1960 Dodge automobile was damaged when it collided with a truck operated by the defendant, Linda Ehlers. This action was brought to recover the damages resulting from the accident.
A jury was waived and the trial court found that the plaintiff should reсover $206.91. The defendant’s motion for new trial was overruled and she has appеaled.
The accident happened on U. S. Highway No. 34 just west of Utica, Nebraskа, at about 4 p.m., on October 21, 1967. The weather was clear and the sun was shining. The plаintiff was traveling west and driving about 35 or 40 miles per hour. When the plaintiff was 2 or 3 blocks east of the main entrance to Utica he saw the truck operated by the defеndant drive onto the highway and turn west. The truck was traveling about 10 miles per hour.
About 1 bloсk west of the main entrance to Utica, as the plaintiff started to pass the truck, the defendant turned left into a private driveway. The plaintiff turned onto the shoulder and applied his brakes but was unable to stop. The right front of the plaintiff’s automоbile collided with the left front of the truck.
The plaintiff testified that he saw no turn signal of аny kind. The defendant testified that she turned the signal lights on “almost immediately” after she entered *53 the highway. She also testified that she had seen the plaintiff’s automobile behind her but did not look to the left or to the rear as she started to turn.
The trial court found “that plaintiff was contributorily negligent but that his negligence was slight in comparison with gross negligеnce of defendant under the circumstances.”
The plaintiff alleged that his damages were $275.88 and introduced a written estimate or statement of repairs in that amount which was received without objection. In offering the exhibit, plaintiff’s counsel stated! that if the repairman were called “he would testify this was the amount of the dаmage.”
The defendant contends that the trial court foundi that the plaintiff’s contributory negligence was 25' percent in a comparative degree and that this should bar the plaintiff’s recovery as a matter of law. The argument assumes that the аmount of the plaintiff’s recovery was reduced 25 percent because of contributory negligence.
When a damaged automobile can be repаired and restored substantially to its original condition, the reasonable cost of the repair is a proper measure of damage. Wylie v. Czapla,
Oрinion evidence as to value is generally not binding on the trier of fact, even whеn it is not met by opposing proof. Grimminger v. Cummings,
Under the comparative negligence statute, section 25-
*54
1151, R. R. S. 1943, the negligence of the pаrties is to be compared, and the plaintiff cannot recover unless the contributory negligence of the plaintiff is slight and the negligence of the defendant is grоss in comparison therewith. Morrison v. Scotts Bluff County, 104 Neb, 254,
A comparison of the negligence of the two parties involved in an accident cannоt be easily translated into a mathematical ratio. This court has never adоpted a rule that contributory negligence of more than a certain pеrcent will bar recovery as a matter of law. The statute does not contеmplate such a rule and we do not ■believe that the adoption of such а rule would further the administration of justice.
The evidence sustains the judgment of the district court and it is affirmed.
Affirmed.