Opinion ID: 3025514
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Lost Employment Damages

Text: Norwest appeals from the District Court’s denial of its motion under Rule 59 to set aside the portion of the verdict related to lost employment damages.2 The jury awarded Gleason $125,000 in “lost employment damages,” even though the jury also found that it was not “reasonably foreseeable, at the time the Stock Purchase Agreement between Norwest and Gleason was made, that Norwest’s breach of the right of first refusal would likely result in Gleason losing salary and benefits he was earning as the President of USR.” Norwest argues that these jury findings cannot be reconciled because, under Minnesota law, damages for breach of contract cannot be awarded if the loss is not reasonably foreseeable or contemplated by the parties at the time the contract is made. See Franklin Mfg. Co. v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 248 N.W.2d 324, 325 (Minn. 1976). If the jury found that damages based on lost employment were not foreseeable, then, under governing law, it could not have awarded damages for that loss. Gleason contends that these two findings are not inconsistent because the jury only found that it was not foreseeable that Gleason would lose the salary and benefits he was earning as President of USR. It did not explicitly find that it was unforeseeable that Gleason would lose his job as a result of the breach. What the jury really meant, says Gleason, is that 2 We review the denial of a motion to alter the verdict using the same standard of review as is appropriate to review the underlying judgment. Koppers Co., Inc. v. Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co., 98 F.3d 1440, 1445 (3d Cir. 1996). When reviewing a jury’s answers for inconsistency, the critical question is whether the answers are necessarily inconsistent with each other or the verdict. Citizens Financial Group, Inc. v. Citizens Nat. Bank of Evans City, 383 F.3d 110, 124 (3d Cir. 2004). 9 it was not foreseeable that Gleason would lose the full extent of his compensation from USR (i.e., all his salary and benefits) because the parties expected that Gleason would obtain other employment to mitigate his damages, but that it was foreseeable that Gleason would suffer a loss equal to the difference between his compensation at USR and his compensation from employment elsewhere. We “are obliged to attempt to harmonize the answers, for it is well established that a verdict must be molded consistently with a jury's answers to special interrogatories when there is any view of the case which reconciles the various answers.” Bradford-White Corp. v. Ernst & Whinney, 872 F.2d 1153, 1159 (3d Cir. 1989) (emphasis added). See also Citizens Financial Group, 383 F.3d at 124 (holding that the critical question is whether the answers are necessarily inconsistent with the verdict). Gleason’s explanation harmonizes the answers without suffering the defect of implausibility, and we therefore accept it. The District Court’s denial of Norwest’s Rule 59(b) motion will be affirmed.3