Court Opinion

ID: 9596474
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:50:07.493031+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:05.036520
License: Public Domain

*406O’CONNELL, C. J.,
dissenting.
As the majority opinion points out, there is evidence “that during the four months prior to the repossession he [plaintiff] earned $40 per shift ‘gross’ and $25 per shift ‘net’ from the operation of the cab over a period of four months and that he worked five or six shifts per week.”
In spite of this proof of damages, plaintiff is denied any recovery whatsoever on the ground, among others, that “a respondent who has not cross-appealed cannot ordinarily obtain the modification of a decree in a manner favorable to himself.” If we accept plaintiff’s calculation of his loss, his total damages resulting from defendant’s conduct would far exceed the amount allowed by the trial court which was the sum of the monthly payments plaintiff would have made had he been permitted to operate the taxi. If we allowed plaintiff full recovery we would, of course, be modifying the decree in his favor by giving him more than he would have received under the trial court decree. But plaintiff is not seeking full recovery on this appeal and, consequently, if we affirm the decree we would merely leave him in the same position as he was upon the entry of the decree in the trial court.
I recognize that the trial judge did not expressly equate the credit he allowed on the contract to the loss of profits suffered by plaintiff. But even though he did not, or even assuming that his reasoning in allowing the credit was erroneous, it should not preclude this court, sitting in equity, from treating the credit as an award representing a part of plaintiff’s loss of profits.
I think that plaintiff was entitled to the specific *407performance which, the trial court allowed, and that the decree, at least in this respect, should he affirmed. I do not think that punitive damages should have been awarded.