Case Title: Decatur County AG-Services, Inc. v. Young

Citation: 426 N.E.2d 644

Docket Number: 

State: indiana

Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Date: 1981-10-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
426 N.E.2d 644 (1981)
DECATUR COUNTY AG-SERVICES, INC., Defendant-Appellant,
v.
Sylvester YOUNG, Plaintiff-Appellee.
No. 1-979A236.

Supreme Court of Indiana.
October 1, 1981.
*645 John P. Schuerman, Comer & Schuerman, Osgood, for defendant-appellant.
Larry L. Eaton, Johnson & Eaton, Versailles, for plaintiff-appellee.
PRENTICE, Justice.
This cause is before us upon the petition of Defendant (Appellant), Decatur County AG-Services, to transfer the cause from the Court of Appeals, First District, which affirmed a judgment in favor of Plaintiff with an opinion published at 401 N.E.2d 731.
Transfer is granted pursuant to Ind. R.App.P. 11(B)(2)(b) in that the Court of Appeals has erroneously decided a new question of law, i.e., the method to be used in determining the damages for destruction of a growing crop having no ready market value.
We adopt the statement of facts and issues as written by the Court of Appeals, as follows:
The trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the plaintiff's damages could be ascertained with reference to the price obtained by him when he sold his diminished crop the following year, as was Plaintiff's custom.
The rule was correctly expressed in Cutler Cranberry Co. v. Oakdale Electric Cooperative, (1977) 78 Wis.2d 222, 229, 254 N.W.2d 234, 238, as follows:
Accord, Gilliland v. Rodriguez, (1954) 77 Ariz. 163, 168, 268 P.2d 334, 337; Casey v. Nampa and Meridian Irrigation District, (1963) 85 Idaho 299, 304, 379 P.2d 409, 411-12; Martin v. Jackel, (1971) Iowa, 188 N.W.2d 331, 333; F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Co. v. Stamper, (1948) 306 Ky. 311, 314-15, 207 S.W.2d 752, 754; Mid-Continent Aircraft Corp. v. Whitehead, (1978) Miss., 357 So. 2d 122, 125; Happy v. Kenton, (1952) 362 Mo. 1156, 1166, 247 S.W.2d 698, 705; Whitaker v. Earnhardt, (1976) 289 N.C. 260, 266-67, 221 S.E.2d 316, 320-21; Eichenberger v. Wilhelm, (1976) N.D., 244 N.W.2d 691, 697; Burke v. Thomas, (1957) Okl., 313 P.2d 1082, 1089-90; Cross v. Harris, (1962) 230 Or. 398, 406, 370 P.2d 703, 707; Swenson v. Chevron Chemical Co., (1975) 89 S.D. 497, 506, 234 N.W.2d 38, 43-44; International Harvester Co. v. Kesey, (1974) Tex., 507 S.W.2d 195, 197.
The above stated rule does limit the time for computing damages to the time of the crop's maturity or harvest. The purpose of damages is to compensate the injured party for the loss suffered. City of Gary v. Falcone, (1976) 169 Ind. App. 295, 296, 348 N.E.2d 41, 42; Pixley v. Catey, (1936) 102 Ind. App. 213, 214, 1 N.E.2d 658, 659. From the record the trial court could have found and did find that Defendant's negligent *647 spraying deprived Plaintiff of three hundred forty-two (342) bushels of mature beans. Because many crops, in their immature state, have no market value, damages are computed at the time of harvest, when a market value first exists. To the extent that Plaintiff elected not to sell his harvest at the time it was first marketable, he was speculating that its market value would be greater at some subsequent date. The risk inherent in such speculation is not chargeable to the defendant. The lost beans could have been replaced from the market place at the time of harvest. Whatever this market value was at that time was the gross loss and, in this case, the extent of Plaintiff's damages.
Speculation about lost profits of this nature is not permitted. Egs., Simplex Railway Appliance Co. v. Western Rawhide & Belting Co., (1909) 173 Ind. 1, 13, 88 N.E. 682, 686 (length of time to re-establish a burned out business held speculative); Connersville Wagon Co. v. McFarlan Carriage Co., (1905) 166 Ind. 123, 129, 76 N.E. 294-296 (profits lost on the manufacture of vehicles held speculative where defendant breached a contract to supply wheels); Montgomery County Union Agricultural Society v. Harwood, (1891) 126 Ind. 440, 26 N.E. 182 (lost profits for candy not sold at a fair held speculative where defendant breached a contract not to allow competitors on the grounds); Western Gravel Road Co. v. Cox, (1872) 39 Ind. 260 (claim for loss of tolls held speculative in suit for defendant's failure to complete a road on the contracted date).
The cause must be remanded to the trial court for a redetermination of damages consistent with this opinion.[3]
Finally, Decatur argues that the trial court erred in failing to deduct any saving to Young for reduced costs.
Plaintiff harvested the beans himself. He provided his own storage, transportation and care of the crop, and the record discloses that Plaintiff realized no consequential savings because of the reduced yield.
The judgment of the trial court as to the damages owing is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court to redetermine such damages in accordance with this opinion.
GIVAN, C.J., and DeBRULER, HUNTER and PIVARNIK, JJ., concur.
[1]  The trial court's consideration of these facts in determining the damages was proper. Watkins v. Gulf Refining Co., (1944) 206 La. 942, 966, 20 So. 2d 273, 281; Cross v. Harris, (1962) 230 Or. 398, 408, 370 P.2d 703, 708.
[2]  The concept of determining the value of a growing crop before and after an injury by a consideration of the difference in value of the harvested crop and what its value would have been, but for the injury, was recognized in Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Railway Co. v. Sparks, (1895) 12 Ind. App. 410, 412, 40 N.E. 546, 547.
[3]  On cross-examination Plaintiff testified that beans were around seven dollars ($7.00, at harvest time. Defendant's brief in the Court of Appeals acknowledges that this figure is undisputed.