Court Opinion

ID: 9514581
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:50:35.607152+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:18.984202
License: Public Domain

AMUNDSON, Justice
(dissenting).
[¶ 17.] It has been the long-standing policy of this Court that “[i]n determining the amount of recovery, there must be a reasonable basis for measuring the loss; damages need only be measured with reasonable certainty.” Wang v. Bekken, 310 N.W.2d 166, 167 (S.D.1981) (citing Schmidt v. Forell, 306 N.W.2d 876 (S.D.1981); Schmidt v. Wildcat Cave, Inc., 261 N.W.2d 114 (S.D.1977); Drier v. Perfection, Inc., 259 N.W.2d 496 (S.D.1977)).
[¶ 18.] In this case, plaintiff submitted an inflated damages claim as reflected by the attached exhibit from Doug’s Anchor Marine. Wasland testified during cross-examination at trial that the following conversation took place between him and Doug Root of Doug’s Marine and himself:
*908Q. (Mr. Vander Linden) All right, now I notice on here that there’s some marks that have been scratched off. Why is that?
A. (Larry Wasland) Because they put two estimates on it and I felt, “Do you think that’s high enough damage wise?” And they said, “Well, what do you feel?” And I said, “Well, that’s what I feel.” So that’s the figure that they put there too. So they agreed that probably was more accurate.
Damages are to be proved to a degree of reasonable certainty. This submission by Wasland of fabricated damages does not comport to this requirement and allows a party to submit a falsified damages claim. How can you have an' expert appraisal on damages that is not based on the expert’s own judgment, but on whatever the owner wants. Although we have said before that damages need not be proved “to a degree of mathematical precision,” nor should mathematics be allowed to manipulate a claim for damages. Husky Spray Serv., Inc. v. Patzer, 471 N.W.2d 146, 153 (S.D.1991). Should a court accept this appraisal as proof of damages? I think not. Therefore, I would reverse on Issue 3.
*909[[Image here]]