Opinion ID: 2189284
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: damages for conversion

Text: [¶ 9] Tort damages, with the exception of punitive damages, are intended to make the plaintiff whole by compensating him or her for any injuries or losses proximately caused by the defendant. Snow v. Villacci, 2000 ME 127, ¶ 9, 754 A.2d 360, 363. The plaintiff has the burden of proving his or her damages. See King, 507 A.2d at 1060. Reardon's equipment was taken from him in December 1999 and returned to him in July 2000. Reardon, therefore, is at best entitled to recover damages he sustained by virtue of his loss of use of the property for a period of approximately eight months. The equipment was eventually returned. Reardon, therefore, is entitled to be compensated for his loss of use, not the value of the equipment. The jury awarded damages of $50,000. We examine the jury's verdict to `determine if any reasonable view of the evidence and those inferences that are justifiably drawn from that evidence supports the jury verdict.' Me. Energy Recovery Co. v. United Steel Structures, Inc., 1999 ME 31, ¶ 6, 724 A.2d 1248, 1250 (quoting Townsend v. Chute Chem. Co., 1997 ME 46, ¶ 8, 691 A.2d 199, 202). [¶ 10] Reardon points to two different evidentiary bases to support the damages award for lost profits. First, he points to an agreement by Lovely Development to credit Reardon for lost profits for an eight-day period, estimated by Reardon at $100 per day, which resulted from Reardon's inability to open for business due to a broken sewer line on the premises. Calculating lost profits for the ten-month period, based on profits of $100 per day, yields approximately $30,000. The issue, then, is whether this evidence is credible evidence sufficient to support a damages award for lost profits. Newbury v. Virgin, 2002 ME 119, ¶ 20, 802 A.2d 413, 417. [¶ 11] In Eckenrode v. Heritage Mgmt. Corp., 480 A.2d 759 (Me.1984), we held that: Plaintiff's own opinion as to the increased profits he would have reaped had he operated the shop for the entire period of his contract, based merely on one year's past performance of the shop and on changes that would result under the contract as to plaintiff's expenses and profit retention, was not an informed opinion based on relevant facts in evidence upon which the jury could rely in assessing damages for claimed lost profits. Id. at 766 (emphasis added). Similarly, in Newbury, the plaintiff's opinion testimony, without corroborating evidence establishing that ... profits would be sustainable, was insufficient to justify the ... reasonableness of the amount of the award. Newbury, 2002 ME 119, ¶ 20, 802 A.2d at 417-18. [¶ 12] The Taco Shack had been open for business for only a few days before the broken sewer line forced Reardon to close down. Thus, his opinion that his lost profits were $100 per day was based on only a few days of operation  a period of operation far less than the one year of past performance we held insufficient in Eckenrode. [¶ 13] As a second basis to support the damages award, Reardon points to the testimony of Cindy Patterson, who prepared a profit and loss statement for the Taco Shack. This evidence does not corroborate an estimated daily profit of $100. She testified that the statement she prepared showed a profit of $2382 for the year 1999, based on nine months of operation. Calculating lost profits for the ten-month period, based on profits of $2382 for nine months of operation, yields approximately $2647. This amount further breaks down to an estimated daily profit of nine or ten dollars. Aside from this discrepancy, there is additional reason to question whether a jury could reasonably rely on this evidence to support a finding of any amount of lost profits. For instance, Ms. Patterson testified that (1) she prepared the 1999 profit and loss statement specifically for use in the lawsuit; (2) the statement does not reflect outstanding debt, including at least $6000 in past due rent; and (3) she also prepared a 1999 tax return for Reardon, which showed a loss for the Taco Shack of $13,483. [¶ 14] The evidence cited by Reardon is not the credible evidence needed to support an award of lost profits. [¶ 15] The other issues raised do not merit comment. The entry is: Judgment vacated. Remanded for a new trial on damages only.