Court Opinion

ID: 9577394
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:34:29.577993+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:20:31.199528
License: Public Domain

O’Hara, J.
(dissenting). I do not agree with the apparent holding of the majority that recovery of lost profits for a new business can never be had because the testimony necessary to sustain such an award would always be too speculative and conjectural.
I rely on the following:
"It has sometimes been stated as a rule of law that prospective profits are so speculative and uncertain that they cannot be recognized in the measure of damages. This is not because they are profits, but because they are so often not susceptible of proof to a reasonable degree of certainty. Where the proof is available, prospective profits may be recovered, when proven, as other damages. But the jury cannot be asked to guess. They are to try the case upon evidence, not upon conjecture.” Isbell v Anderson Carriage Co, 170 Mich 304, 318; 136 NW 457, 462 (1912). See also 51C CJS, Landlord & Tenant, § 314(2), p 795; 49 Am Jur 2d, Landlord & Tenant, § 187, p 211; 88 ALR2d 1024, 1039. (Emphasis supplied.)
Since Supreme Court authority is conflicting, I believe I am permitted to choose precedent. I opt for the Sixth Circuit holding as the better rule. *543See Sinclair Refining Co v Gutowski, 195 F2d 637 (CA 6, 1952), cited in fn 2 of Judge J. H. Gillis’ opinion.
In the instant case, proof of loss of profits from liquor sales is totally speculative and should not have been submitted to the jury. The proof of loss from operation of bookstores by the plaintiffs was sufficiently explicit to provide a reasonable basis for the jury to infer what profits plaintiffs would have earned had the lease agreement not been breached.
Pursuant to the well-established practice in Michigan of either granting a new trial or allowing a remittitur of that portion of the verdict which is excessive, I would affirm the lower court judgment conditioned upon plaintiffs consenting, within 30 days following the release of this opinion, to remitting that portion of the judgment in excess of $60,000. Otherwise the judgment should be reversed and a new trial had. Plaintiffs are also entitled to the return of the $1,000 deposit paid to an officer of defendants Village Plaza and Fair-born.