Jackson v. Reiling
| Decision Date | 14 January 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 46487,46487 |
| Citation | 311 Minn. 562,249 N.W.2d 896 |
| Parties | Harris L. JACKSON, Appellant, v. Wesley J. REILING, Respondent. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Harris L. Jackson, pro se.
Meagher, Geer, Markham, Anderson, Adamson, Flaskamp & Brennan, O. C. Adamson II and John Hally Riley, Minneapolis, for respondent.
Considered and decided by the court without oral argument.
This is an automobile negligence action in which the jury returned a special verdict finding plaintiff 45 percent negligent, defendant 55 percent negligent, and fixing plaintiff's personal injury damages at $5,000. Plaintiff appeals from an order denying his motion for a new trial on the ground that certain instructions of the trial court regarding damages were erroneous.
The intersection automobile accident which is the subject of this action occurred on July 17, 1965. Plaintiff sustained an injury to his right wrist as a result of that accident. His medical expert testified that he had suffered a 10-percent permanent partial disability of the wrist.
At the time of the accident plaintiff had been employed by the Great Northern Railroad for about 9 1/2 years and was 39 years old. 1 He took a medical leave of absence following the accident. In the summer of 1966 the railroad received reports indicating that plaintiff was able to return to work and discovered that he had taken other employment. It demanded that plaintiff report for work and, when he failed to so, he was discharged. While working for the railroad plaintiff paid into a pension fund. His pension rights were to 'vest' after 10 years of employment. Because he was discharged after 9 1/2 years, his pension did not vest.
Before trial, counsel for the parties agreed to a settlement for the damages to plaintiff's automobile and stipulated that no evidence of automobile damages would be introduced.
On appeal, plaintiff contends (1) that the trial court erred in ruling that the alleged loss of the railroad pension rights was too speculative and remote to be considered an appropriate element of damages, and (2) that the trial court erred in giving effect to the stipulation regarding automobile damages.
Damages which are remote and speculative cannot be recovered. Hornblower & Weeks-Hemphill Noyes v. Lazere, 301 Minn. 462, 222 N.W.2d 799 (1974); Carpenter v. Nelson, 257 Minn. 424, 101 N.W.2d 918 (1960). There is no general test of remote and speculative damages, and such matters should usually be left to the judgment of the trial court. Austin v. Rosecke, 240 Minn. 321, 61 N.W.2d 240 (1953). In the instant case the alleged loss of pension rights was conjectural, both in existence of a causal relationship and in amount of the loss. The jury, in order to find a causal relationship, would have had to conclude that the accident caused the loss of plaintiff's job; that but for the accident he would have retained his job for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Amerinet, Inc. v. Xerox Corp.
...of the evidence that Amerinet would not have suffered its alleged losses but for Xerox's wrongful conduct. Jackson v. Reiling, 311 Minn. 562, 249 N.W.2d 896, 897 (1977); North Central Co. v. Phelps Aero, Inc., 272 Minn. 413, 139 N.W.2d 258, 263 (1965). Amerinet cannot recover for damages wh......
-
Group Health Plan, Inc. v. Philip Morris, Inc.
...cause. Under Minnesota law, damages which are too speculative cannot be recovered in a legal action. See Jackson v. Reiling, 311 Minn. 562, 249 N.W.2d 896, 897 (1977). The Court recognizes that separate analyses must be conducted for antitrust proximate causation and speculative damages the......
-
In re W.R. Grace & Co.
...2004 WL 2093555 at *3 (Minn.App., Sept21, 2004)(designated "unpublished"), review denied Dec. 22, 2004, citing Jackson v. Reiling, 311 Minn. 562, 249 N.W.2d 896, 897, cert. denied 432 U.S. 906, 97 S.Ct. 2951, 53 L.Ed.2d 1078 (1977)(plaintiff cannot recover for damages that are While Russell......
-
Labore v. J. P. Morgan Chase Bank, No. A06-1990 (Minn. App. 10/23/2007)
...damages, summary judgment is appropriate. See Lubbers v. Anderson, 539 N.W.2d 398, 401 (Minn. 1995); Jackson v. Reiling, 311 Minn. 562, 563, 249 N.W.2d 896, 897 (1977) (noting that a damages claim cannot be "remote and speculative"). Further, issues not raised in an appellant's brief are wa......