Opinion ID: 1937314
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: loss of productive time

Text: The jury was instructed that loss of productive time included both loss of earnings and impairment of earning capacity. Loss of earnings is an element of special damages. Spalding v. Loyland, 132 N.W.2d 914, 924 (N.D.1965). Impairment of earning capacity is an item of general damages which can be inferred from the nature of the injury without proof of actual income after the injury. Id. Miller argues that it was error to combine elements of general and special damages on the verdict form. But Miller did not object to the form of the verdict in the court below. Consequently, he cannot raise the issue for the first time on appeal. Hoerr v. Northfield Foundry & Mach. Co., 376 N.W.2d 323, 327 (N.D.1985). Miller also claims that there was no evidence of impairment of Olmstead's future earning capacity and that evidence of his past and future wage loss was speculative. We disagree. Olmstead testified that he was a self-employed sales representative for various clothing brands, covering a five-state area as a traveling salesman. He testified that his injuries affected his ability to do his job and that when his headaches beset him, he often took to his bed, unable to work. He estimated he lost twenty hours a week from work because of the injuries. Miller argues that because there was no corroboration of Olmstead's testimony that he can now work only twenty hours per week, the damages awarded for loss of productive time were speculative. In Miller's opinion, Olmstead was required to produce employment records or the testimony of employers to substantiate his claim of loss of productive time. Miller refers us to Boyles v. Bridgeman, 342 So.2d 1150, 1152 (La.Ct.App.1977), for the proposition that it is error to award damages for loss of earnings based solely on plaintiff's testimony. We do not believe that this corroboration requirement is a hard and fast rule even in Louisiana. Our reading of cases postdating Boyles suggests that corroborative evidence of plaintiff's testimony of wage loss is merely a preference, not a requirement. See Sherlock v. Berry, 487 So.2d 555, 557 (La.Ct.App.1986) [lost wages claim sufficiently supported by plaintiff's testimony as to drop in income]; Davis v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 441 So.2d 18, 20 (La.Ct.App.1983) [plaintiff's failure to establish loss of wages with tax return or testimony of employer not fatal to claim for loss of wages]; Green v. Superior Oil Co., 441 So.2d 54, 56 (La.Ct.App.1983) [loss of earnings may be proved solely by plaintiff's own testimony, if plaintiff is considered credible by trier of fact]. Even if corroboration were required, it was provided by the introduction of Olmstead's tax returns for the years 1978-1987. Although the returns show increased income in several years following the accident, they also show a sharp drop in income in the last two years. This corresponds with the time during which Olmstead testified that his headaches had worsened. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we cannot conclude that the jury acted upon insufficient evidence or awarded damages for loss of productive time that were so excessive as to have been influenced by passion or prejudice or to be without support in the evidence or that shock the judicial conscience.