Opinion ID: 1154788
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Plaintiffs Failed to Establish the Amount of Their Damages With Reasonable Certainty.

Text: This Court has stated: The rule that damages, if uncertain, cannot be recovered applies to their nature, and not to their extent. If the damage is certain, the fact that its extent is uncertain does not prevent a recovery. Merritt v. Dueitt, 455 So.2d 792, 793 (Miss. 1984), quoting Billups Petroleum Company v. Hardin's Bakeries Corporation, 217 Miss. 24, 63 So.2d 543 (1953). Ciba-Geigy cites Stephens v. Brock, 568 So.2d 702 (Miss. 1990), as support. In that case the plaintiffs failed to put on evidence of net profits. The Court stated: That a substantial loss occurred is unquestioned. However, the proof is vague as to the dollar amount of the loss even to the point of suggesting an intentional vagueness. Surely Brock and Worrell could have produced evidence more precise and proof more exact. Here there is no attempt to offer evidence of past profits, cost of production or marketing, but only proof of gross revenue anticipated. Thus the damages awarded were improper. 568 So.2d at 704-705. Stephens cites to Leard v. Breland, 514 So.2d 778, 783 (Miss. 1987), for the rule that the most generally accepted method for determining damages for such injury [to a growing crop] is to compute the difference between the value of the probable crop if there had been no injury and the value of the actual crop at maturity, less the expense of cultivation, harvesting and marketing that portion of the probable crop which was prevented from maturing. Both Murphree and Chrestman established their damages by comparing the total milo they harvested in 1986 with the amount they reasonably believed based on their experience that they should have harvested. Both were farmers with many years experience in the growing of milo. Murphree testified that he made an average of 5.43 bushels per acre. When asked his expected yield, Murphree testified that on the 486 acres he planted in G522DR he would have been satisfied with 65 bushel. He testified that the government loan price was $1.83 per bushel and the difference between 65 bushels and 5.43 was 59.57. He calculated his loss as $52,377. When Chrestman was asked his opinion as to what he should have made on his 334 acres, he testified that he could have easily made 75 bushel to the acre. Chrestman testified that he made 11,625.6 bushels on his acres and that he should have made around 25,000 bushel that year. He used a $1.98 per bushel price, which was the market price, and estimated his damages at $26,801.14. Chrestman also had some fields which he felt made good milo and he testified that the yields for 1986 averaged around 75 bushels per acre. Chrestman's opinion as to his expected yields was based on his many years experience in the farming industry and in raising milo for 20 years. Chrestman testified that he was one of the first people in north Calhoun County to farm milo. Murphree's and Chrestman's opinions as to lost profits were not so speculative as to require reversal of these awards. The testimony showed that they had sufficient knowledge and point of comparison to make as accurate a calculation as can be made when dealing with losses of this kind. The jury award to Murphree of $52,377.00 and to Chrestman of $26,801.14 is affirmed.