Court Opinion

ID: 9687832
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:51:05.258943+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:32.233193
License: Public Domain

Clinton, J.,
dissenting.
I dissent. The case should be not only reversed, but also dismissed. The plaintiffs failed to adduce evidence from which the jury could determine the value of the converted property without indulging in speculation and conjecture. Therefore the defendants’ motion for a directed verdict should have been granted. . The effect of the majority opinion is to allow a new trial to the plaintiffs so that they may remedy their own deficiencies of proof. This constitutes a departure. from well-established procedural rules, the substance of which is that a party who fails to obtain a verdict (or against whom a verdict should have been directed) because of failure of proof of some element of his cause of action, including the element of damages, is not entitled to a new trial so that he may have another shot at it.
The cause of action submitted to the jury was one for the conversion of personal property. The pertinent portion of this second cause of action as it appears in the plaintiffs’ petition is as follows: “That the defendants continue to hold and detain from plaintiffs the personal property and refuse and have refused to give it up, and have disposed of the same so that the fair and reasonable value of the property taken and converted to the use of defendant, including loss of use to the plaintiffs, is the sum of $14,200.00.”
The majority opinion' adequately shows that there was no evidence from which the jury could have determined the value of the property converted or the value of its use. • •
■ Before discussing the applicable Nebraska law, I wish to set forth the following summary of general principles based upon text authority which are or should be famih iar to every judge and' lawyer. If evidence is legally *742insufficient to prove one of the elements of a cause of action, the verdict should be directed. 88 C. J. S., Trial, § 252, p. 595, § 258, p. 674. The cause should not be remanded for the purpose of a new trial in order to give an opportunity to introduce evidence which should have been offered at the original trial. 5B C. J. S., Appeal & Error, § 1941, p. 486. The ordinary measure of damages for the loss of personal property is the market value of the property at the time and place of the loss. 25 C. J. S., Damages, § 82, p. 904. Or if there is no market, then its actual value. 89 C. J. S., Trover & Conversion, § 98, p. 591. The value of the property should be alleged. 89 C. J. S., Trover & Conversion, § 98, p. 591. If there are special damages they must be pleaded and a proper instruction given with reference thereto. 89 C. J. S., Trover & Conversion, § 156, p. 636. There must be competent evidence of value. 25A C. J. S., Damages, § 157, p. 53. The court must instruct on the elements, measure, and assessment of damages. 25A C. J. S., Damages, § 178, p. 191.
We must bear in mind in this case that the defendants against whom the jury found contend that they were entitled to a directed verdict. The situation is the same therefore as if the plaintiffs-appellees had an unfavorable verdict and appealed because of error and the present appellants were countering with the claim that the error makes no difference because they were entitled to a directed verdict without reference to the claimed error.
The following is the pertinent Nebraska law. In Midlands Transp. Co. v. Apple Lines, Inc., 188 Neb. 435, 197 N. W. 2d 646, we said: “Summarizing these authorities the more precise question before us is not whether there is any competent evidence in the record to show that the damages are capable of mathematically exact measurement, but whether there is sufficient evidence and data to enable the trier of fact, the jury, with a *743reasonable degree of certainty and exactness to estimate the actual damages. . . .
“It is true that Apple was prevented from the proper presentation of its case on damages due to the fact that the relevant documents and evidence were lost when fire destroyed the company office building. This explains but obviously does not excuse Apple’s failure to sustain its burden of proof on the issue of damages. It is the duty of the district court to refrain from submitting to a jury the issue of damages when the evidence is such that it cannot determine such issue except by indulging in speculation and conjecture. Johnsen v. Taylor, 169 Neb. 280, 99 N. W. 2d 254. To submit the issue of damages in this case to the jury would be to ‘leave the jury to rove without guide or compass through the limitless fields of conjecture and speculation.’ See McGinnis v. Hardgrove, supra. The determination of the trial court not to submit Apple’s cross-petition to the jury is sustained on this ground alone.”
Wittenberg v. Mollyneaux, 55 Neb. 429, 75 N. W. 835, was an action for damages for breach of contract not to compete. We there said: “There was not made, however, proof to the requisite degree of certainty, although plaintiff almost succeeded in that effort. It was made to appear that prior to the opening of Shope’s hotel plaintiff’s was the only hotel in town. The extent of his receipts was shown. It was then shown that the amount of business did not change. This was by proving that the number of travelers entering the town, and other conditions, remained practically the same. Then the receipts of the plaintiff’s hotel, after the opening of Shope’s, were shown, and there was evidence in addition that the receipts of the two hotels were about the same as plaintiff’s receipts had been. But one important element was lacking. There was no proof as to expenses under the first condition. We *744may surmise that in such a business certain elements of expense remain constant, but that others must vary according to the volume of business. It is said in the briefs that it was shown that the expense remained the same, but counsel certainly mistake the record. The only evidence relating to expenses is found in plaintiff’s testimony, where, in answer to a question as to how his ‘trade ran’ after Shope had opened the other hotel, he said: ‘My trade ran about even with my expenses, about $11 a day. It just took all I could get to make my expenses.’ This tends to prove that, after Shope opened, plaintiff’s business was not profitable, but for all that appears his expenses before his business was reduced were so much greater than after-wards that the same condition then existed. In the absence of evidence on that point proof of receipts alone would fail to establish the loss of profits to any degree of certainty.” Judgment for the plaintiff was reversed.
Neill v. McGinn, 175 Neb. 369, 122 N. W. 2d 65, was an action to recover for damages to an automobile. The jury found for the defendant. The trial court sustained a motion of the plaintiff for a new trial and the defendant appealed. On the issue of proof of damages, we said: “The plaintiff, who first testified, attempted to prove the value of her automobile before the taking and the salvage value thereafter. On direct examination she was permitted to testify, over objections that the questions were irrelevant and immaterial, that she purchased it from Rosen-Novak and paid $2,738 for it and received $150 for the salvage. Over like objection she said she was without transportation facilities for 3 months and paid $100 a month for taxicab services in that period.
“Evidence of the purchase price of the automobile, or the sale price of the salvage, or the expenses of transportation while deprived of its use in no way tended to prove the proper measure of plaintiff’s damage-in *745this cause. In Lund v. Holbrook, 153. Neb. 706, 46 N. W. 2d 130, this court held: ‘In an action for damages to an automobile, where the automobile cannot be placed in substantially as good condition as it was before the injury, the measure of damages is the difference between its reasonable market value immediately before and immediately after the accident. The injured party is not permitted to recover in addition thereto damages for loss of use.’ It is obvious that neither the purchase price nor the amount received as salvage was material to show the reasonable market value of the automobile before and after the injury.” We reversed and ordered judgment entered on the verdict for the defendant.
Section 25-1315.03, R. R. S. 1943, reads in part as follows: “The Supreme Court on appeal from an order granting a new trial, or upon a review of an order denying a new trial in the action in which such motion was made, or on appeal from the judgment, may order and direct judgment to be entered in favor of the party who was entitled to such judgment.” (Emphasis supplied.)
In Wax v. Co-Operative Refinery Assn., 154 Neb. 42, 46 N. W. 2d 769, the question before the court on appeal was the sufficiency of evidence to prove, proximate cause. The plaintiff had a verdict below. The defendant had moved to dismiss for insufficiency of the evidence. The court denied and submitted'the case to the jury. We determined the evidence was insufficient to establish proximate cause, and said: “It is. true that a motion for directed verdict was not made but a motion for dismissal was made on the ground that the evidence did not sustain a cause of action. This brings the case within section 25-1315.02, R. R. S. 1943.
“A motion to dismiss on the ground -that the evidence does not sustain a cause of action for all practical purposes is the same as a motion for directed verdict and this court has uniformly so treated it. Meyer *746v. Platt, 137 Neb. 714, 291 N. W. 86; Robinson v. Central Neb. Public Power & Irrigation District, 146 Neb. 534, 20 N. W. 2d 509; Fentress v. Co-Operative Refinery Assn., supra; Roby v. Auker, 149 Neb. 734, 32 N. W. 2d 491; Armer v. Omaha & C. B. St. Ry. Co., 151 Neb. 431, 37 N. W. 2d 607.
“We conclude under this reasoning that the motion to dismiss should have been sustained the same as if a motion for a directed verdict had been made agreeable to the terms of section 25-1315.02, R. R. S. 1943.
“It follows that the court did not err in setting aside the verdict but it did err in granting the defendant a new trial.
“To the extent of the error the order of the district court is reversed. It is otherwise affirmed.
“Pursuant therefore to section 25-1315.03, R. R. S. 1943, which provides in part as follows: ‘The Supreme Court on appeal from an order granting a new trial, or upon a review of an order denying a new trial in the action in which such motion was made, or on appeal from the judgment, may order and direct judgment to be entered in favor of the party who was entitled to such judgment,’ this cause is remanded with directions to render judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of the defendant.”
In Johnsen v. Taylor, 169 Neb. 280, 99 N. W. 2d 254, we said: “Restatement, Torts, § 912, p. 574, states: ‘A person to whom another has tortiously caused harm is entitled to compensatory damages therefor if, but only if, he establishes by proof the extent of such harm and the amount of money representing adequate compensation with such certainty as the nature of the tort and the circumstances permit.’ In Comment a appears the following: ‘Where a person seeks to recover damages for a particular harm which he claims has resulted to his person or to a tangible thing belonging to him, he has the burden of proving that the other has invaded *747a legally protected interest of his, that he has suffered such harm and that the act of the other was a legal cause of such harm. Thus where a person has been wounded by another and subsequently blood poisoning develops in any portion of his body, he has the burden of showing that it is more probable than not that the initial wrongful contact • was a substantial factor in producing it. * * * In all of such cases the recovery of damages for a particular harm is dependent upon proof that such harm occurred as the result of the tortious conduct and normally the plaintiff can recover damages therefor only by proving this with the same degree of certainty as that required in proving the existence of the cause of action.’ See, also, Wylie v. Czapla, 168 Neb. 646, 97 N. W. 2d 255; 15 Am. Jur., Damages, § 329, p. 768.
“The district court is required to refrain from submitting to a jury the matter of damages and to decide the case as a matter of law if the evidence of claimant fails to establish that he has sustained an injury or fails to establish the extent of the injury he claims was inflicted upon him so that a jury cannot determine damages except by indulging in speculation and conjecture.”
In Laurinat v. Giery, 157 Neb. 681, 61 N. W. 2d 251, we held that there was a failure of proof of negligence. We said: “The trial court erred in overruling defendant’s motion for an instructed verdict at the close of plaintiff’s case and in denying a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Pursuant to section 25-1315.03, R. R. S. 1943, the judgment of the district court is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to enter judgment for the defendant. Yanney v. Nemer, 154 Neb. 188, 47 N. W. 2d 368.”
Patrick v. Union Central Life Ins. Co., 150 Neb. 201, 33 N. W. 2d 537, was an action on a life insurance policy. The basis of the action was the presumption of death of the insured arising from an absence for a *748period of 7 years. The, defendant moved for a directed verdict. It was denied. The jury verdict for the plaintiff beneficiary was rendered. The defendant moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. This motion was sustained. The plaintiff appealed. We reversed and ordered judgment entered on the verdict.
This court has on some occasions on apparent inadvertence failed to follow the principles cited. Such cases are Wylie v. Czapla, 168 Neb. 646, 97 N. W. 2d 255; Patrick v. City of Bellevue, 164 Neb. 196, 82 N. W. 2d 274. The error of those cases should not be perpetuated and affirmed.
Failure to prove damages by competent evidence should be treated the same as any other failure of proof. It seems clear to me there was no proof of the market value of the property, or its actual value, or the value of its use, and that the verdict could only be the result of conjecture or acceptance of evidence not competent for the purpose.
I would reverse and dismiss.