Court Opinion

ID: 9667925
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:57:51.394533+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:41.579738
License: Public Domain

Coleman, J.
(concurring in part, dissenting in part). Although anticipated profits from a new business may be determined with a reasonable degree of certainty such was not the situation regarding loss of profits from liquor sales as proposed by plaintiffs.
First, plaintiffs had no license and a Liquor Control Commission regional supervisor and a former commissioner testified that the described book and bottle store could not obtain a license. Further, the proofs of possible profits from possible liquor sales — if a license could have been obtained —were too speculative. The speculation of possible licensing plus the speculation of profits in this case combine to cause my opinion that profits from liquor sales should not have been submitted to the jury.
I agree with Judge O’Hara in his Court of Appeals dissent and would have allowed proof of loss from the bookstore operation to go to the jury, but not proof of loss from liquor sales. His remedy is also approved. I would affirm the trial court judgment conditioned upon plaintiffs’ consenting within 30 days following the release of this opinion, to "remitting that portion of the judgment in excess of $60,000. Otherwise, the judgment should be reversed and a new trial had”. Plaintiffs are also entitled to the $1,000 deposit.