Opinion ID: 1900651
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: question #2: was there any credible evidence to support the damages assessed by the jury?

Text: [2] The general rule for appellate review of damage awards, as for other factual questions, is that any credible evidence of the damage claimed is sufficient to sustain the jury's award. Roach v. Keane, supra, 73 Wis.2d at 539. [3] In cases of fraudulent misrepresentation, the measure of damages adopted in Wisconsin is the benefit of the bargain rule under which the measure of damages is the difference between the value of the property as it was when purchased and what it would have been if it had been as represented. Anderson v. Tri-State Home Improvement Co., 268 Wis. 455, 464, 67 N.W.2d 705 (1955); Wis. J.I. Civil  2405. There do not appear to be any Wisconsin cases on the measure of damages in cases of negligent misrepresentation. However, the standard jury instruction recites the out-of-pocket rule for such cases  the difference between the market value of the property as it was when purchased and the amount the plaintiff paid for it. Wis. J.I. Civil  2406. [4] Prosser, Law of Torts (Hornbook Series, 4th Ed. 1971), p. 734, suggests that the out-of-pocket rule as a matter of logic, is more consistent with the purpose of tort remedies, which is to compensate the plaintiff for loss sustained, rather than to give him the benefit of any contract bargain. That treatise notes that it has been suggested that the loss of bargain rule should be applied in cases of intentional misrepresentation, while the out-of-pocket rule should be applied where the misrepresentation is innocent. We hold that the out-of-pocket rule applies where negligent misrepresentation is found. In the instant case, both parties acquiesced in the trial court's giving of the out-of-pocket instruction to the jury. [5] There was no instruction as to consequential damage, nor does the record reflect a request for one. Dobbs, Remedies (Hornbook Series, 1973), p. 598 states that in addition to a recovery of general damages under either the loss-of-bargain or out-of-pocket rules, the plaintiff in a deceit action may recover such consequential or special damages as he is able to prove with reasonable certainty, provided they do not duplicate a recovery already gained under the general measure of damages. Recovery of consequential damages may also be limited to such damages which were proximately caused by the misrepresentation or by such damages as were within the contemplation of the parties at the time of the misrepresentation. Id. at 602. We hold that the recovery of consequential damages is not limited to cases of intentional deceit. They may also be appropriate in cases of negligent misrepresentation. The evidence in the case at bar was that Mr. Schroeder bought out Mr. Gyldenvand's interest in the business for $13,520. The price included Gyldenvand's interest in thirty-three head of cattle, [1] equipment and feed. [2] The testimony does not specify how much of the purchase price went for the registerable, but as yet unregistered cattle, and how much for the other animals. Mr. Schroeder estimated his damages by multiplying the total number of pounds represented by the herd, 28,700, by twenty-five cents per pound, yielding $7,175 as the value of the whole herd unregistered. However, this erroneously assumes that the value of registerable but unregistered cattle would be the same as cattle not eligible for registration. Under these facts the jury determination of damages was speculative, and the case must be remanded for a redetermination of out-of-pocket and possibly consequential damages. The loss of profits from the first sale when Mr. Schroeder was offered $15,000 for eleven animals may be a consequential loss resulting from the misrepresentation depending on all the facts and circumstances. Up until that time, Mr. Schroeder had relied on Mr. Gyldenvand's statements that the registration papers had been sent in and were still being processed. After discovering that the papers had never been sent in, Mr. Schroeder took action to register the animals himself. [6] We hold that there must be a new trial in the interest of justice (sec. 751.06, Stats.) on the issue of damages only but that the prior determination of the jury on negligent representation and apportionment of negligence between the parties shall stand and be applied to any finding on damages. By the Court.  Judgment reversed and cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.