Opinion ID: 1252037
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Lost Profits and/or Income

Text: The appellant argues that the trial court erred in failing to direct a verdict on the issue of lost profits. This asks us to decide whether the record contains sufficient evidence to sustain a verdict and judgment on lost income and profits. The work commenced at the end of November, 1981 and the evidence favorable to the appellees is that the first phase containing 22 spaces would be completed in 90 days and the second phase, which contemplated an additional 20 spaces, would be completed in the spring of 1982. Landmark, Inc. never did complete the job and appellees were forced to hire others to do it. The appellees claim loss of income and profit from the date Landmark, Inc. agreed to complete the project, to the time when it actually was completed by others. The exhibits and testimony of the appellees' witnesses undertake to substantiate lost income for Phase I in the sum of $35,190 and for Phase II in the amount of $26,400 for a total of $61,590. The lost-income figure found by the jury is $40,500. We find the evidence sufficient to support this verdict. At the outset, the rule of Champion Ventures, Inc. v. Dunn, Wyo., 593 P.2d 832, 835 (1979), comes to mind, where we said: Where there cannot be a fixed amount of damages, triers-of-fact must of necessity be given broad discretion in deciding what award is fair and just. Chittim v. Armco Steel Corporation, Wyo., 407 P.2d 1015, 1018 (1965). Since damages such as those with which we are here concerned cannot be calculated with certainty, they should nevertheless be ascertained    if there is evidence from which a reasonable estimate of money damages may be made that is sufficient, the primary objective being to determine the amount of loss, applying whatever rule is best suited for that purpose. Douglas Reservoirs Water Users Association v. Cross, Wyo., 569 P.2d 1280, 1284 (1977). In Wyoming Bancorporation v. Bonham, Wyo., 563 P.2d 1382, 1385, reh. denied 566 P.2d 219 (1979), we held that lost profits will not be denied merely because a business is new, providing sufficient data is available and in evidence and which evidence furnishes a basis for computation of probable loss of profits. Therefore, we have adopted a reasonable certainty test where new business lost-profit proof is in issue. See: S. Jon Kreedman & Co. v. Meyers Bros. Parking  Western Corporation, 58 Cal. App.3d 173, 130 Cal. Rptr. 41 (1976); Vickers v. Wichita State University, Wichita, 213 Kan. 614, 518 P.2d 512 (1974); and Smith Development Corporation v. Bilow Enterprises, Inc., 112 R.I. 203, 308 A.2d 477 (1973). We reaffirmed the rules of Wyoming Bancorporation in Albin Elevator Company v. Pavlica, Wyo., 649 P.2d 187 (1982), when we said:    However, the rule allowing recovery for lost profits requires that the plaintiff prove such loss with a reasonable degree of certainty through use of the best evidence available. 649 P.2d at 191, citing Wyoming Bancorporation v. Bonham, supra; R.E.B., Inc. v. Ralston Purina Company, 525 F.2d 749 (10th Cir.1975); and Lundgren v. Whitney's, Inc., 94 Wash.2d 91, 614 P.2d 1272 (1980). We went on to hold, in Bancorporation v. Bonham, supra, that the establishment of lost profits with reasonable certainty depends upon the facts of each case. See Notes: The Requirement of Certainty in the Proof of Lost Profits, 64 Harvard L.Rev. 317, 319 (1950). The best proof available should be furnished, Vickers v. Wichita State University, Wichita, supra; McCormick Law of Damages, § 29 (1935), but absolute certainty with respect to proving loss of future profits is not required. Smith Development Corporation v. Bilow Enterprises, Inc., supra; 22 Am.Jur.2d, Damages § 172. In this case, what was designated as plaintiffs' Exhibit 62 reads as follows: Rutger Mobile Home Park I 4/1/82- Average 5/1/83 Lost Lot Gross Mo. Cost Net Months Income # Rental When Rented Rental Unoccupied thru 5/1/83 1 350.00 75.00 275.00 12 3300.00 2 450.00 100.00 350.00 13 4550.00 3 450.00 100.00 350.00 11 3850.00 4 450.00 100.00 350.00 3 1050.00 5 450.00 100.00 350.00 0 -0- 6 150.00 30.00 120.00 6 720.00 7 150.00 30.00 120.00 13 1560.00 8 150.00 30.00 120.00 13 1560.00 9 150.00 30.00 120.00 13 1560.00 10 150.00 30.00 120.00 13 1560.00 11 150.00 30.00 120.00 13 1560.00 12 150.00 30.00 120.00 9 1080.00 13 150.00 30.00 120.00 13 1560.00 14 150.00 30.00 120.00 13 1560.00 15 150.00 30.00 120.00 13 1560.00 16 150.00 30.00 120.00 13 1560.00 17 150.00 30.00 120.00 6 720.00 18 150.00 30.00 120.00 10 1200.00 19 150.00 30.00 120.00 9 1080.00 20 150.00 30.00 120.00 13 1560.00 21 150.00 30.00 120.00 13 1560.00 22 150.00 30.00 120.00 4 480.00 __________ 35,190.00 Phase II 20 lots net rental $120.00 per lot July 12, 1982 thru May, 1983, 11 months to date $120 X 11 = $1320 loss per lot to date $1320 X 20 = $26,400 lost income to date 20 spaces Plaintiffs' Exhibit 62 portrays net income figures for all of the lots in Phase I. It shows the gross rental and average monthly cost of each lot's utilities with a resulting net figure. In addition, the exhibit shows the months during which each lot was unoccupied with a consequent lost-income figure for each lot, and, finally, a total lost-income figure for all lots in Phases I and II. In support of this exhibit, various witnesses testified to the proposed rental figures based on experience in the area under the same or reasonably similar circumstances. There was testimony of a probable expectancy that the spaces would have been rented during the time frame in question, had the spaces in fact been available. The cost factors were based upon the experience of the appellee Mrs. Ruger, who testified to seven years in the business in the area. Given this evidence, we find that the Wyoming Bancorporation and Albin Elevator Company rules for proof of loss of profits in a new business have been complied with. The verdict was well within the range of the proof and that is all that is required. Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company v. Smith, Wyo., 637 P.2d 1020, 1027 (1981).