Opinion ID: 2974054
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Present-Value Instruction

Text: cab contends that the trial court erred by not instructing the jury to reduce Tharo’s damages on the failure-to-provide-information claim to present value. cab failed to object to the lack of the instruction at trial, thus we review only for plain error. See Preferred RX v. Am. Prescription Plan, 46 F.3d 535, 548 (6th Cir. 1995); Fed. R. Civ. P. 51(d)(2). “Under the common law of Ohio, future damages must be reduced to present value, and a defendant is entitled to a jury instruction to that effect.” Galayda v. Lake Hosp. Sys., 644 N.E.2d 298, 301 (Ohio 1994). But, as we discuss above, the damages on the failure-to-provide-information claim represent “the value of the information cab was required to turn over to Tharo” on the date of the breach, and at trial cab failed to challenge the accuracy of i1.7 million estimate. Nevertheless, cab asks this court to speculate that Brlas’s estimate did not reflect the value at the time of the - 23 - No. 05-3876 Tharo Sys. v. cab Produkttechnik breach and to conclude that the trial court plainly erred by not instructing the jury to reduce its damages award accordingly. We decline to engage in such speculation.5