Opinion ID: 2588258
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Damages Must Be Reasonably Ascertainable

Text: Whether Hadley or proximate cause serves to limit liability for consequential damages, a plaintiff must prove the damages he has suffered with reasonable certainty. Dobbs, supra, § 6.6(2), at 137. When the issue of causation is resolved, the question is whether the evidence of loss . . . contains sufficient certainty and proximity upon which to base an award of special or consequential damages. Cope v. Vermeer Sales & Serv. of Colo., 650 P.2d 1307, 1309 (Colo. App.1982). The purpose of the reasonable certainty rule is to avoid making compensatory damages awards for lost profits which are fabricated or based on mere conjecture or speculation. Nora v. Safeco Ins. Co., 99 Idaho 60, 577 P.2d 347, 350 (1978) (internal quotations omitted). The rule only applies to situations where the fact of damages is uncertain, not where the amount is uncertain. Peterson v. Colo. Potato Flake & Mfg. Co., 164 Colo. 304, 310, 435 P.2d 237, 239 (1967). Hornblower v. Lazere, 301 Minn. 462, 222 N.W.2d 799 (1974), provides a relevant application of this rule. In that case, the defendant alleged in his counterclaim that by mispaying him $8,000, the plaintiff had caused him to forbear selling stock that he otherwise would have sold. Hornblower, 222 N.W.2d at 803. This stock declined in value between the time that the mispayment was made and the time the plaintiff demanded that defendant return the $8,000. Id. Citing the rule that speculative, remote or conjectural damages are not recoverable, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that an award of damages could not be sustained on this basis. Id. It noted that [a]lthough defendant alleged that the negligent payment caused him to forbear selling stock which later declined in value, he was unable at trial to state specifically what stock he would have sold, and on what date he would have sold it, had he been informed of the correct state of his account. Id. Accordingly, the court reasoned that since it would have been impossible for the jury to have determined with any accuracy what stocks defendant would have sold and on what date, . . . we hold that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, is too speculative to afford a reasonable basis for that portion of the verdict granting damages to defendant for plaintiff's negligent mispayment of the $8,000. Id. With these principles in mind, we turn to the merits of the case at hand.