Opinion ID: 1231921
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: front pay as an element of contract damages.

Text: We review the trial court's determination that future lost wages are too speculative as a matter of law to be permitted as an element of contract damages. The fact that contract damages are not capable of exact proof does not preclude their availability as a matter of law. The rule is that the measure of damages is such as will compensate for the loss suffered as the result of a breach of contract. Beal v. Mars Larsen Ranch Corp., 99 Idaho 662, 586 P.2d 1378 (1978); Nelson v. Hazel, 91 Idaho 850, 433 P.2d 120 (1967). When considering an award of damages for lost future benefits, the question is whether the plaintiff has proven the damages relating to future losses with reasonable certainty. Clark v. International Harvester Co., 99 Idaho 326, 581 P.2d 784 (1978). Where a claim is asserted for the recovery of future benefits, the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to prove with reasonable certainty the amount of the loss caused by the conduct of the defendant. In the context of an employment contract for an indefinite term, a plaintiff might resort to evidence such as employment history to show likelihood of future employment. Any claim of damages for prospective loss contains some element of uncertainty, but that fact is not fatal to recovery. [T]he jury may make a just and reasonable estimate of the damage based on relevant data, and render its verdict accordingly... . `[J]uries are allowed to act on probable and inferential as well as [upon] direct and positive proof.' Bigelow v. RKO Radio Pictures, Inc., 327 U.S. 251, 265, 66 S.Ct. 574, 580, 90 L.Ed. 652 (1946), quoting Story Parchment Co. v. Paterson Parchment Paper Co., 282 U.S. 555, 564, 51 S.Ct. 248, 250-51, 75 L.Ed. 544 (1931). The most elementary conceptions of justice and public policy require that the wrongdoer shall bear the risk of the uncertainty which his own wrong has created. Bigelow, 327 U.S. at 265, 66 S.Ct. at 580. Thus, we hold that the district court erred in its determination that a breach of an employment contract for an indefinite term precludes the recovery of future lost wages as a matter of law. We reverse the district court's determination that future lost wages are too speculative as a matter of law to be permitted as an element of contract damages. BAKES, C.J., and BISTLINE, JOHNSON and BOYLE, JJ., concur.