Opinion ID: 1839052
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: did the trial court err in granting jury instruction p-9?

Text: Purina objected to instruction P-9 alleging that the jury was provided no evidence from which it could determine damages. Instruction P-9 reads in pertinent part: Should your verdict be for plaintiffs, E.R. Moak and Faye M. Moak, you may consider such of the following factor in determining the amount of damages to be awarded as may be shown by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) The actual purchase price or cost of the feed purchased from Purina Mills, Inc.; (2) Loss of milk production; (3) Increased cull rate of the cows; (4) Increased veterinary and herd health costs; (5) The value of cows which died as a proximate result of the acts of Purina Mills, Inc., if any; (6) The actual value of calves which died as a proximate result of the acts of Purina Mills, Inc., if any; (7) The actual value of calves which had to be sold as a result of illness, disease or other ill effects proximately caused by the acts of Purina Mills, Inc. if any; (8) Any future expenses related to loss of milk production, lost cows, lost calves or loss of future profits, if any, as a proximate result of acts of Purina Mills, Inc. The trial court denied the objection finding that the testimony of Mr. Moak, Dr. Smith, and Dr. Herman provided a sufficient basis for the jury to determine the damages requested in the instruction. Purina correctly notes that before the jury is instructed regarding a disputed fact, there must be some credible evidence in the record which would support the instruction. Payne v. Rain Forest Nurseries, Inc., 540 So.2d 35, 37 (Miss. 1989); Graves v. Graves, 531 So.2d 817, 821 (Miss. 1988). However, this Court also recognizes the rule that where jury instructions read as a whole fairly  though not perfectly  instruct the jury on the applicable law, this Court will not reverse. Payne v. Rain Forest Nurseries, Inc., 540 So.2d 35, 40 (Miss. 1989); Middleton v. Evers, 515 So.2d 940, 942 (Miss. 1987). In this case we note that instruction P-9 furnishes a guide to the jury to be used by it in awarding damages. See Gerodetti v. Broadacres, Inc., 363 So.2d 265, 267 (Miss. 1978). Though we would agree that there was no evidence by which the jury could determine an award of damages for some of the factors listed in instruction P-9, we find this defect to be harmless because instruction P-8 instructed the jury that damages, to be recoverable, must be shown with reasonable certainty both as to their nature and as to their cause. Instruction P-8 states in pertinent part: If the cause of the injury is reasonably certain, you may reasonably estimate the damages. Although the lack of a perfect measure does not preclude recovery, you must not guess or speculate. The plaintiffs must give you a reasonable basis on which to base your estimate of damages. This instruction when read in conjunction with instruction P-9 instructs the jury not to determine any of the damages requested in instruction P-9 without proof of a reasonable basis upon which to base an estimate. Reading the instructions as a whole, we find that the jury was adequately instructed. See Payne v. Rain Forest Nurseries, Inc., 540 So.2d 35, 40 (Miss. 1989); Detroit Marine Engineering v. McRee, 510 So.2d 462, 467 (Miss. 1987). This assignment of error is without merit.