Court Opinion

ID: 9545501
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:13:40.223984+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:14:55.108080
License: Public Domain

SHENK, J., Concurring and Dissenting.
I concur in the opinion of the majority except in so far as it requires the trial court to compute, which I assume means to determine by calculation, the present value of the sum which the court found to be the damages for the destruction of the mineral, on some basis of “profits” to be realized from future production. I am unable to find authority or justification for any such rule in the law of damages for tort. • When the trial court has applied, and this court has now approved, the correct rule for the measure of damages in such eases, namely, the difference between the market price of the mineral refined and ready for market on the one hand, and the expense of mining and preparing the raw material for market and the royalty *545to the state on the other, regardless of whether the mineral is to be mined now or next year or not at all at the owner’s option, the result reached by the trial court would necessarily follow. The value of the mineral in place at the time of its destruction was the issue. It was established by competent evidence and the question of future profits was not properly in the case. It seems to me that the rule now laid down has injected into such cases elements and problems unknown to the law.
Rehearing denied.