LEWIS RIVER GOLF, INC. V. O.M. SCOTT & SONS 845 P.2d 987 (1993) CASE BRIEF

LEWIS RIVER GOLF, INC. V. O.M. SCOTT & SONS

845 P.2d 987 (1993)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Lewis River (P) sought review from a judgment of the Superior Court for Cowlitz County, which affirmed four elements of a damage award for P but reversed the fifth element awarding damages for losses suffered on P's sale of its sod business. P had filed the suit against Scott (D).

FACTS: P grew sod or turf. It bought seed from D under an express warranty. The sod grown from the seed had weeds. P claimed that the express warranty was breached. P lost most of its commercial customers and had been sued by two of its buyers dissatisfied with the sod. D's proposed remedies were unsuccessful in resolving the weed problem. P cut production from 275 acres to 45 acres and destroyed all of the turf raised from D's seed. P sued D for losses, including lost profits. In 1985, a jury awarded P $1,327,000. The Court of Appeals affirmed the verdict on liability, but held that the testimony of P's expert included two improper calculations, that is, inclusion of lost profits on unplanted acreage and certain interest costs. The award of damages was reversed and remanded for trial on that issue alone. The case was again tried to a jury, and was limited to determination of damages. However, between the first and second trials, the facts about damages had changed. P had sold its sod business. P contended that, along with specific damages, it suffered a loss on the sale of its sod business because of damage to its reputation or goodwill from the sale of 'bad' sod resulting from D's defective seed. The trial court submitted five elements of damages to the jury with a segregated verdict form. The jury followed the verdict form and made a separate award for items one through four, as defined in the instructions. A separate award of $1,026,800 was made for the loss P 'suffered on the sale of its sod division'. D appealed to the Court of Appeals. That court affirmed the award of $664,430 made for items one through four of the damage instruction, but reversed the verdict as to the loss on sale of the business. P petitioned for review.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner