Court Opinion

ID: 9688067
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:59:38.759063+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:08:40.162325
License: Public Domain

CANE, P.J.
(concurring). I concur with the majority’s ultimate conclusion is this case. However, my concern is that the majority's opinion might be misread as an ironclad rule that a plaintiff can never recover lost profits when losing a nonproducing animal. I would conclude that if the plaintiff had lost milk profits because of a reasonable time delay in replacing the calves, the loss would be compensable. For example, if a plaintiff is required to replace a calf because of a defendant's negligence and as a result loses a period of time when the original calf would have become milk *48producing, the loss should be compensable. The plaintiff, however, must replace the calf within a reasonable time period. In this case, I would conclude that Schrubbe's failure to replace the calves before they would become milk producing was unreasonable as a matter of law. Therefore, I concur with the majority's result.