Opinion ID: 1902007
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Admission and Sufficiency of the Evidence.

Text: Taylor contests the admission by the trial court of Mason's evidence from another truck driver as to his approximate gross profits during that period when Mason's truck was under repair. In Wilson & Co., Inc. v. Sims, 250 Ala. 414, 34 So.2d 689 (1948), it is stated: The plaintiff sought to rest recovery for the loss of use of the truck on proof of loss of profits during the period it was laid up for repairs, but this is not permissible in this kind of a case. The weight of authority does not support such a theory nor have our own courts sanctioned it. The following text in American Jurisprudence, Vol. 5, p. 908, § 751, states what we conceive to be the pertinent rule: `While the loss of prospective profits may, in certain circumstances, be considered as an element of damages for injury to a commercial vehicle, the weight of authority is to the contrary. In no event, however, may one recover for loss of profits that are purely speculative or problematical.' Wilson & Co., Inc. v. Sims, 250 Ala. 414, 415, 34 So.2d 689 (1948). The certain circumstances mentioned in the quoted text refer to cases where an award of lost profits is sustained when no substitute motor vehicle can be obtained in the market while plaintiff's vehicle is being repaired. Wilson, supra; 42 C.J. Motor Vehicles p. 1294, § 1171 (1927), and cases cited at nn. 52, 53, p. 1298, § 1179, n. 32. Appellee concedes his failure to proffer any evidence in the trial Court concerning the unavailability of other commercial vehicles for rent or lease during his down time. Consequently, upon the authority of Wilson, Mason's claim for lost profits, as here postured, is without merit. The admission by the trial Judge of evidence going to another driver's lost profits was clearly error.