Opinion ID: 1388158
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Failure of court to instruct on proper measure of general damages.

Text: Defendant's final assignment of error is that the trial court erred in failing to give its requested instruction on the proper measure of general damages in such a case. [7] The court gave no instructions on general damages. As previously stated, however, the damages requested by plaintiffs and submitted to the jury were for: (1) loss of compensation and (2) loss of good will, which are ordinarily considered to be special damages in such a case. In Buck v. Mueller, supra , we said (221 Or. at 281, 351 P.2d at 66) that:    The special damages flowing from defendant's conduct would also be measured exactly the same whether that conduct is viewed as a tort or a breach of contract  the damage is the loss of profits and any other losses incident to the dispossession of plaintiff. Denominating defendant's conduct as a breach of contract does not give the plaintiff a license to demand damages not subject to measurement. Although there are no general damages in the instant case, plaintiff is entitled to recover special damages for the invasion of his interest in the leasehold, if he can prove such damages. He may show that as a result of a deprivation of possession he suffered a loss of business profits.    Defendant says, however, that it was prejudiced because the form of verdict submitted to the jury had both a blank for general damages and a blank for special damages and was filled in so as to award $14,113 general damages and $6,250 special damages. Defendant also says that the jury could only assume that a blank on the form was to be filled in with damages for lost compensation and the other was to be filled in with damages for the lost good will. There may be a question whether the verdict was a proper verdict. Because, however, there is no record of any objection by defendant to that verdict and because defendant has made no such assignment of error in its brief, that question is not properly before this court on this appeal. Holding, as we do, that there is no merit to defendant's assignments of error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.