Court Opinion

ID: 9707379
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 02:10:05.535625+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:31.962757
License: Public Domain

Morse, J.,
dissenting. I respectfully dissent because a remand for a new trial on damages will not “prevent a failure of justice.”
At the close of plaintiff’s case and again at the close of the evidence, defendants moved for a directed verdict on the ground that plaintiff had not proved the amount of damages suffered as a result of defendants’ breach. Although plaintiff alleged total business losses of more than $28,000, jurors were left to speculate about what portion of that amount was caused by defendants as opposed to other causes. The trial court, as the Court today holds, erred in denying all motions for directed verdict and the motion for j.n.o.v.
Plaintiff was not ambushed; it knew defendants had made a challenge that its case on damages had not been proved. Plaintiff nevertheless chose to stand pat on the evidence. Even the jury was aware of the deficiency in the evidence. During deliberation, a note was submitted asking,
If we decide the defendants breached the covenant of quiet enjoyment and we feel the evidence shows the breach caused damages, but that the evidence does not show the amount of damages, must we award all or nothing?
After the court answered “no” to this question, the jury asked a second question:
*208We are confused. Your instructions say our award should not be based on speculation or guesswork, so how would we arrive at any other amount?
The trial court then instructed the jury to do the impossible, “You have to look at all of the evidence,” of which there was none. The jury’s award of $17,000 compensatory damages was obviously a number picked out of the air (somewhere between zero and the total amount asked by plaintiff).
Having decided to rest its case on the evidence presented, despite a motion for a directed verdict, why should plaintiff have a second chance? We do not ordinarily grant, and cannot often afford to give, plaintiffs new trials when the evidence is insufficient, as was the case here.
The Court’s only authority for a second “bite of the apple” are cases over twenty years old. These cases are anomalies and obviously do not require the result in this case. Although, in a compelling case, the Court may provide a particularly deserving litigant a new trial, there is nothing out of the ordinary in this case to support that kind of discretion. Plaintiff simply took its chances. And, we must not forget that magnanimity bestowed on one litigant must be at the expense of the other party. Today, when appreciable backlogs exist and continue to build in our courts, we should be less cavalier about expending limited resources, ours and litigants’.
I would reverse.