Opinion ID: 1721208
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: question of profits

Text: On direct examination Lopez testified about the amount of his expenses. The appellant objected to this testimony and the trial court overruled the objection, and appellant now claims the court's ruling is reversible error. From the record it is evident the following occurred. Q. All right. Now, of the Two dollars and seventy-five cents you were paid to do this job, how much was profit? MR. STONE: We object. Speculative. THE COURT: I will allow him to testify as to what percentage was his expenses. BY MR. FOSTER: Q. All right. What part of the THE COURT: Excuse me. I sustain his objection, and I anticipate that there will be another one to the next question. Go ahead. BY MR. FOSTER: Q. All right. What part of the two dollars and seventy-five cents was expenses? MR. STONE: Yes, sir, I object to that. THE COURT: All right. Overruled. Go ahead and answer it. THE WITNESS: Twenty percent would be expenses. BY MR. FOSTER: Q. And about eighty percent would be profit? A. Yes, sir, eighty percent was profit. A witness is not precluded from stating his expenses as a conclusion of fact. See Malone v. Reynolds, 213 Ala. 681, 105 So. 891 (1925); Rowell v. Treadwell Ford, Inc., 511 F.2d 164 (5th Cir.1975). We hold that enumerating an itemized list of costs and stating what percentage of a total contract price represented expenses, as in the case sub judice, are equally valid means for a party to establish his expenses. Even if counsel improperly asked the witness about profits the second time, there are no grounds for reversal, because the appellant failed to object to the second question regarding Lopez's profits; in the absence of an objection we cannot review that issue on appeal. See Holt v. Davidson, 388 So.2d 548 (Ala.1980); Callahan v. Weiland, 291 Ala. 183, 279 So.2d 451 (1973).