Opinion ID: 1187046
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Was there sufficient evidence of lost earning capacity before the jury to justify an instruction?

Text: ANWC claims there was insufficient evidence to support an instruction for lost earning capacity. The two leading Alaska cases on the impairment of earning capacity are City of Fairbanks v. Nesbett, 432 P.2d 607 (Alaska 1967), and Morrison v. State, 516 P.2d 402 (Alaska 1973). In Nesbett, this court held: Impairment of earning capacity means the permanent diminution of the ability to earn money. The determination of award of impairment of future earning capacity involves two distinct considerations, namely, determination of the extent of an earning capacity and the measurement of loss therefrom. 432 P.2d at 617 (footnotes omitted). The court then went on to hold that the lost earning capacity instruction in Nesbett should not have been given because there was no evidence in the record as to the effect of the ankle injury on the plaintiff lawyer's earning capacity. The court noted that the rule requiring a showing of loss is strictly applied in cases where a professional person is seeking to recover damages for lost wages. In that case, the jury could not have determined the plaintiff's loss of earning capacity from just knowing the nature of his injury (injured ankle) and his occupation (attorney). 432 P.2d at 617. In Morrison, this court emphasized Nesbett's holding that impairment of earning capacity is the permanent diminution of the ability to earn money. 516 P.2d at 404 (emphasis in original). We said that the appellant was correct in her contention that the trial judge should have made his award for appellant's lost earning capacity rather than `lost earnings.' Id. In that case the appellant was a young woman. The judge awarded her only five years of future lost wages on the assumption that at the end of five years she would have left the work force and become a housewife. This court made it clear that as a normal housewife, she would still be entitled to an award for impaired earning capacity, because she has lost the capacity to work in commercial enterprises. 516 P.2d at 405. ANWC's major contention on the issue of impairment of future earning capacity is that Manville had no such capacity because she had worked for the family-owned business for many years for an almost nominal salary, even though she maintained a forty-eight hour work week. This contention is directly rebutted by this court's holding in Morrison, 516 P.2d 402, where this court held that a woman who voluntarily foregoes wages in the commercial market in order to work as a housewife is nevertheless entitled to an award for lost earning capacity. Id. at 404-05. Next, ANWC argues that Nesbett, is authority for the proposition that the evidence in the present case was insufficient to allow a jury instruction. However, the two cases are not the same. As noted above, the attorney in Nesbett presented no evidence of his lost earning capacity. Here, as shown below, Manville produced substantial evidence of her lost earning capacity. In the present case, Manville worked six days a week full-time at the family-owned business. After the accident she could not work more than twenty hours per week. If it were not for her injuries, there is substantial evidence that she would still be working a forty-eight hour week. Manville had no plans for retirement. In addition, Manville's expert provided evidence on the value of Manville's services to the family business. Using various wages and numbers of hours per week, the expert calculated Manville's future earning capacity loss as anywhere from $70,000 to $185,000. The evidence also showed that the family business was required to hire additional employees to perform work which Manville was doing before the accident. Finally, there was medical testimony as to Manville's impaired mental and physical health following the accident which would interfere with her ability to work. In conclusion, there clearly was sufficient evidence before the jury to allow the trial judge to instruct the jury on impairment of future earning capacity.