Title: Harris Cattle Co. v. Paradise Motors, Inc.

State: arizona

Issuer: Arizona Supreme Court

Document:

104 Ariz. 66 (1968) 448 P.2d 866 HARRIS CATTLE CO., an Arizona corporation; and Thomas Anesl and Jane Doe Anesl, his wife, Appellants, v. PARADISE MOTORS, INC., Appellee. No. 9265-PR. Supreme Court of Arizona. In Banc. December 26, 1968. Kramer, Roche, Burch, Streich & Cracchiolo, by Dan Cracchiolo, Phoenix, for appellants. Bellamak, Zepp & Mitchell, by Ferris W. Bellamak, Scottsdale, for appellee. McFARLAND, Chief Justice: This is a petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, reducing the amount of a judgment of the Superior Court to $560. 7 Ariz. App. 287, 438 P.2d 434. Opinion of the Court of Appeals vacated. Plaintiff-appellee, Madison Chevrolet, Inc. (originally Paradise Motors, Inc.), hereinafter called Madison, sued defendant-appellant Harris Cattle Co., hereinafter called Harris, for damages due to an automobile accident. Harris' car went out of control, went upon Madison's property and severely damaged the building thereon, which was an automobile showroom. Harris conceded liability and paid the cost of repairing the building. Madison claimed that during the approximately two months required to repair the damage, his business was seriously impaired and a large loss of profits resulted. That was the only issue in the case. The trial court awarded Madison damages in the sum of $11,385. Harris appealed. The trial court made findings of fact to the effect that Madison suffered a loss of profits in the amount of $11,385. Under Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule No. 52(a), 16 A.R.S., these findings may not be set aside unless "clearly erroneous." *67 The issue presented in the instant case is the sufficiency of the evidence to support these findings. It is the contention of the defendant that the plaintiff failed to establish with reasonable certainty that a loss of profits occurred during the period for which these damages were awarded. The evidence showed that Madison Motors in downtown Phoenix was sold, and that Mr. Madison retained nine of the experienced salesmen who had been working out of the downtown office; that the sales force was thereby increased by 40 per cent; that while there was an increase in the profits of Madison the profits per salesman were decreased. The evidence of the loss of profits is based upon Exhibit 3, prepared by Madison's accountant to show the profit for the period affected by the loss in 1963, alongside the profit for the same period of 1962. It was explained that since the salesmen are a part of Madison's organization, the loss per salesman definitely shows that the profits would have been greater had Madison had a proper place to display cars, and had the salesmen not been handicapped in not having a proper place to do their work. The following table contains the meat of the exhibit: In Jacob v. Miner, 67 Ariz. 109, 191 P.2d 734, we held: In Gilmore v. Cohen, 95 Ariz, 34, 386 P.2d 81, 11 A.L.R. 3d 714, we said: In speaking on the question of the rules to govern the determination of the amount of damage for loss of business, the Washington court, in the case of Sposari v. Matt Malaspina and Company, 63 Wash. 2d 679, 388 P.2d 970, held: The question then is whether the findings of the trial court are "clearly erroneous." The evidence in the instant case *69 is practically undisputed, according to the testimony of Mr. Madison, that the show room, which was destroyed, was used for the purpose of displaying new cars; that the weather was cold during the time the building was being reconstructed; that after the accident took place, it was boarded up but couldn't be locked and a watchman had to be there at night; that it could not be heated for some time; that it was uncomfortable for customers and for people working there; that it tied up the sales and the lubrication departments; that the painters came in and had spray rigs and compressors, all of this impairing Madison's operations; that in order to get into the show room, prospective customers had to go through the workroom because they couldn't get in the front way; that the "closing offices" used by the salesmen were "busted up," and that these were where salesmen took customers to discuss prices, payments, etc. This testimony clearly supports the finding that the future sales were damaged. The expert testimony was based upon the reduction in the profits per salesman. The weight of this evidence was for the court to determine, and, as pointed out in the case of Sposari v. Malaspina, supra, the amount of the damage was a question to be resolved by the trier of the facts. As stated in Jacob v. Miner, supra, the wrong having been admitted and it having been clearly proven by the evidence that Madison suffered damage, a more liberal rule must be allowed to determine the amount. Coombs, when asked the question if in his estimation the amount of damages was not "speculative in nature," replied "No, it is not speculative. It is based on the record." So we have in the instant case the testimony of an expert giving an estimation based upon the prior sales of salesmen. While, as Harris contends, the profits did increase, this does not justify this Court in holding that the findings of fact were "clearly erroneous." Nor should appellate courts substitute their judgments for those of the trial courts. Brandes v. Mitterling, 67 Ariz. 349, 196 P.2d 464. Decision of the Court of Appeals vacated. Judgment of the trial court affirmed. UDALL, V.C.J., and STRUCKMEYER, BERNSTEIN and LOCKWOOD, JJ., concur.