Court Opinion

ID: 9582718
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:30:38.597449+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:38:16.267285
License: Public Domain

Townsend, Judge,
dissenting. The majority opinion recognizes that where a petition shows a breach of contract with consequent damages, failure to minimize the damages is a matter of defense, 'and the petition is not subject to demurrer for this reason unless it affirmatively appears that the plaintiff did not take steps which he should have taken and which would have reduced his damages. The opinion then construes the cross-action as showing that the defendants failed to take necessary steps to minimize the damages, and states: “This construction of the cross-action is authorized by the fact that the allegations thereof fail to show what efforts, if any, the defendant made to obtain other and suitable fiber for manufacturing into yarn, and they fail to show that other suitable fiber was not available or obtainable by them or that if other suitable fiber was not available or obtainable by them, why it was mot available and why the defendants could not obtain it in the open market and continue to operate the mills.” The contradiction in terms is this: if a mere failure to allege what steps were taken to minimize damages results in an inference that no such steps were taken, then the rule that the burden is not on the pleader to allege what steps he has taken is done away with in its entirety. It cannot be inferred from mere failure to allege minimization of damages that all reasonable efforts in that direction were not made any more than it can be inferred from mere failure of a plaintiff in a damage action to allege that he was in the exercise of ordinary care that he was not in the exercise of such care. The presumption is, in such cases, that the required degree of care was used, and that the required effort to minimize damages was made. That is the whole meaning of rulings to the effect that such situations, if they exist, are matters for the defense to plead and prove.
*404The cross-action here alleges that under one of the contract terms the defendants converted to- rayon staple, the yarn to be used by MyLue Corporation, a customer of the plaintiff without adequate facilities for the .processing of raw materials; that the plaintiff failed to provide the staple as agreed, and “that the failure of plaintiff to supply defendants with the agreed quantity of rayon staple raw material forced defendants to close down their mill at Dougiasville, Georgia.’’ Accordingly, taking this allegation as true as against general demurrer it appears that the defendants at a cost of $23,009 outfitted themselves to supply one of the plaintiff’s customers with a particular kind of yam; that the plaintiff’s breach of contract prevented them from so doing, and they thus lost, at least, the $23,000 spent in converting from cotton to rayon staple for this purpose. It is my opinion that the petition is not subject to general demurrer in that it affirmatively shows as stated in the majority opinion that the defendant failed to minimize his damages, nor do I believe it is subject to general demurrer for failure to allege a proper measure of damages.