Opinion ID: 2229760
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Damaged Grain Allowance

Text: Finally, Hallam claims that the trial court erred in failing to award Hallam damages for grain damage allegedly caused by Lange's negligence in not connecting the aeration fan motors to an electrical supply. The elements of a negligence action are duty, breach, proximate cause, and damages. Grote v. Meyers Land & Cattle Co., 240 Neb. 959, 485 N.W.2d 748 (1992). Hallam argues that once Lange knew Hallam had stored grain in the bins, Lange had a duty to promptly hook up the fan motors. Hallam claims that Lange breached this duty by failing to have its own electrician promptly connect the fan motors and by preventing the electrician Hallam hired from connecting the fan motors. Even if we assume that Lange breached this duty, Hallam produced insufficient evidence to prove either causation or damages. The trial court found that Hallam did not produce credible evidence of the quality of the grain prior to its damage. Without such evidence, Hallam could not establish the proximate cause of Hallam's grain spoilage or how much damage, if any, was attributable to the absence of the fans. Holsing testified that bin No. 1 contained grade 1 or 2 milo, and bin No. 2 contained mostly grade 1 or 2 milo. Grade 1 means that the grain contains 13 percent moisture and 4 percent foreign material. Grade 2 means the grain contains 14 percent moisture and 8 percent foreign material. The trial court concluded: The testimony and other evidence with respect to the allegedly spoiled grain is so disjointed and confusing as to be almost incomprehensible. In addition, the testimony of Mr. Holsing with respect to the grades of milo and its moisture content is not supported by his own records; these show moisture content above fourteen percent and the presence of bugs in a sizeable portion of this grain. Lange produced evidence that the grain was of poor quality when it was loaded into the bins and that any spoilage of the grain could have been due to factors other than the absence of the aeration fans. Gerald Bodman, a University of Nebraska professor, testified that more than 50 percent of the grain was of poor quality due to bugs or moisture content greater than 14 percent and that the grain damage could not have been prevented even if the fans had been operational from the time the bins were filled. Hallam failed to prove the amount of its alleged losses with any degree of certainty. Holsing claimed that the difference in market value of the grain in bins Nos. 1 and 2 was $76,800. Holsing also testified that he had blended the damaged grain with higher quality grain, but he failed to produce evidence of how much grain was sold at a reduced price because of any damage caused by heat. Therefore, the trial court determined that Hallam may not have suffered any actual monetary loss. Given the lack of evidence as to the cause or amount of damaged grain, the trial court was not clearly wrong in refusing to award Hallam damages for spoiled grain in bins Nos. 1 and 2.