Court Opinion

ID: 9690546
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 19:22:25.778337+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:59.201360
License: Public Domain

PARRISH, Judge,
concurring.
I concur. I write separately to comment on the issue raised in appellants’ Point IV. Point IV asserts that the trial court erred in permitting respondent’s expert, an economist, to consider potential earnings, including suggested fringe benefits, that respondent postulated would be available from employment in California. Appellants suggest that the expert witness’ testimony lacked proper foundation and was speculative; that the trial court erred in receiving it.
The principal opinion aptly acknowledges that in the event of retrial, evidence concerning respondent’s future earnings may be different from that previously presented. For that reason Point IV was not addressed.
Appellants cite Haley v. Byers Transp. Co., 414 S.W.2d 777 (Mo.1967), and Lippard v. Houdaille Industries, Inc., 715 S.W.2d 491 (Mo. banc 1986), for the proposition that the value of loss of future earnings may not rest on speculation. Although the basis for the expert testimony in this case differs from that in Haley and in Lippard, the principle for which those cases are cited is sound. In the event of a retrial, the sufficiency of the foundation on which an expert might project the value of potential future earnings would warrant the trial court’s close review.