Opinion ID: 2213759
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Instruction on measure of compensatory damages.

Text: In instruction number 31 the court informed the jury on the measure of compensatory damages: The measure of recovery for damages to the plaintiffs' inventory is the difference in reasonable market value immediately before the taking, and the reasonable market value at present, as shown by the evidence, but not exceeding $80,000, this being the amount claimed. In its exception taken at trial Hawkeye conceded this instruction was a correct statement of the law, but asserted the market in this instance should be further defined as a distressed market for goods seized by a creditor. A contention similar to that Hawkeye advances was raised and rejected in Kerr v. Tysseling, 239 N.W. 233, 234 (Iowa 1931) (`[M]arket value' and `fair and reasonable market value' ... are ordinary English terms as well understood by everybody acquainted with the language as their synonyms would be.). See also Clapp v. Cass County, 236 N.W.2d 850, 861 n. 2 (N.D. 1975). In its appeal brief Hawkeye seeks to amplify its trial exception by pointing out that two statutes relied on by Barnhouse in his specifications of negligence refer to collateral sold on a recognized market. See Iowa Code §§ 554.9504(3), 554.9507(2) (1981). Barnhouse's brief responds that the term recognized market, found in these statutes, is used in the context of when notice to the debtor is required and whether the creditor has acted in a commercially reasonable manner, not in the context of a formula for fixing damages. In its reply brief Hawkeye concedes this point, but finally asserts trial court abused its discretion in failing to inform the jury that it should consider the evidence showing various markets, decide an applicable or relevant market and then proceed to determine value for the purposes of damages. Hawkeye's final contention can be inferred from its trial exception to damage instruction 31 only with an imaginative leap. It is true that several experts expressed various opinions of the value of the parts inventory, both in the hands of Barnhouse and later in the possession of Hawkeye. In view of the record in this regard, however, the jurors could not have been misled when they were instructed to determine reasonable market value at the relevant times as shown by the evidence. We find no trial court error in rejecting Hawkeye's exception to the measure of damage instruction.