Opinion ID: 2571698
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Capable of Exact Measurement

Text: On appeal in this case, the Court of Appeals found, in accordance with the College Place ruling, that by using the word measurable, the legislature intended to allow only those damages that were capable of exact measurement. Dahl-Smyth, 110 Wash.App. at 35, 38 P.3d 366 (emphasis added). DSI's expert admitted at trial that his calculation of damages was not subject to any kind of exact measurement, they are estimates at best. Report of Proceedings at 81. Apparently because loss in value cannot be measured exactly, the Court of Appeals concluded that measurable damages do not include the loss in value to the hauler's certificate. Dahl-Smyth, 110 Wash.App. at 34-35, 38 P.3d 366. The court cited Metropolitan, stating: In effect, Dahl-Smyth requested and received as `measurable damages' the very damage award denied in Metropolitan: just compensation for the loss in value of its franchise. Id. at 34, 38 P.3d 366. However, Metropolitan does not prohibit the recovery of measurable damages for loss in value of the franchise. Rather, the Metropolitan court stated that the franchisee could seek damages for  any loss sustained over and above the benefit derived from the franchise. 32 Wash.App. at 719, 649 P.2d 642 (emphasis added). Measurable is not defined in RCW 35A.14.900. When no statutory definition is provided, words in a statute should be given their common meaning, which may be determined by referring to a dictionary. Budget Rent A Car Corp. v. Dep't of Licensing, 144 Wash.2d 889, 899, 31 P.3d 1174 (2001). Webster's defines measurable as capable of being measured, great enough to be worth consideration: significant, and of limited duration: not indefinite; foreseeable. WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY 1399 (1971). Nowhere in Webster's definition does it state that measurable means exact. It seems unlikely that the legislature meant for measurable damages to be awarded only if capable of exact calculation, particularly as such precision is not required in the calculation of other types of damages awards. For example, in discussing a damages claim for lost profits, this court has stated: It is not necessary that lost profits be susceptible of exact calculation. It is sufficient if there be data from which the profits can be ascertained with a reasonable degree of certainty and exactness. Cal. E. Airways, Inc. v. Alaska Airlines Inc., 38 Wash.2d 378, 380, 229 P.2d 540 (1951). See also 22 AM.JUR. 2d Damages § 486 (1988). Thus, we find it more likely that, as DSI argues, the legislature used the word measurable to indicate that damages must be capable of calculation by some accepted methodology.