Opinion ID: 1154788
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Murphree Was Allowed a Double Recovery for His Lost Milo.

Text: At trial Murphree offered two different valuations of his lost milo crop. He calculated the lost sale price based on the difference between his actual crop and expected crop using the government loan price, and he also gave the replacement cost of the lost milo using what he actually spent to buy alternative grain to feed his livestock. The jury awarded him both. Appellant correctly contends that this was double recovery and error. Murphree calls one award actual damages and the other consequential damages. His primary defense is to claim that the Appellant failed to make a timely, contemporaneous specific objection and is now estopped. The cases cited by Murphree do not support this proposition. Under the facts of this case, there is no legal basis for awarding other than actual damages and it was an error in law to submit this instruction to the jury. The Court recognizes the instruction as plain error. As set out in Leard v. Breland, 514 So.2d at 783, the awarding of profits and expenses is a double recovery. Clearly, Murphree could not both sell his milo and also feed it to his livestock. Generally, a plaintiff must choose among alternative methods of calculating damages so as not to be unjustly enriched. City of Jackson v. Keane, 502 So.2d 1185, 1187 (Miss. 1987). This award will not be allowed to stand. The award of $32,006.00 in consequential damages to Murphree is reversed and rendered.