Midcontinent Broadcast. Co. v. North Central Air., Inc., 72-1307.

• Decision Date: 17 January 1973
• Docket Number: No. 72-1307.,72-1307.
• Citation: 471 F.2d 357
• Parties: MIDCONTINENT BROADCASTING COMPANY, a corporation, Appellant, v. NORTH CENTRAL AIRLINES, INC., Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

471 F.2d 357 (1973)

MIDCONTINENT BROADCASTING COMPANY, a corporation, Appellant, v. NORTH CENTRAL AIRLINES, INC., Appellee.

No. 72-1307.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted November 14, 1972.

Decided January 17, 1973.

Harding A. Orren, Minneapolis, Minn., for appellant.

Roger T. Sahr, Minneapolis, Minn., for appellee.

Before GIBSON and LAY, Circuit Judges, and DURFEE, United States Court of Claims Judge.

LAY, Circuit Judge.

Midcontinent Broadcasting Company sought damages against North Central Airlines when the latter's aircraft struck and destroyed a 2,000 foot television tower from which plaintiff was broadcasting. North Central admitted liability and stipulated to the amount of damages to Midcontinent Broadcasting's equipment and to the incidental expenses. The sole issue at trial was the amount of profits Midcontinent allegedly lost due to the accident. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Midcontinent in the sum of $500,000. However, the trial court granted North Central's motion for judgment n. o. v. and, in the alternative, sustained its motion for a new trial. Midcontinent appeals from this judgment. We reverse the grant of the judgment n. o. v. and remand in accordance with the trial court's ruling granting a new trial.

From 1956 until August of 1967, plaintiff's television station KELO had telecast from a 1,000 foot tower. Signals were telecast from the new 2,000 foot tower from August 1967 until June 24, 1968, when defendant's airplane struck the new tower and caused its collapse. After four days off the air, Midcontinent began broadcasting from the older 1,000 foot tower. This continued for some eleven months until the 2,000 foot tower was rebuilt and returned to service in May of 1969.

At trial, the plaintiff relied almost exclusively on the testimony of an expert witness, Martin Goldberg, to prove the existence and extent of any lost profits. During the trial North Central objected to the admission of Goldberg's testimony on the ground that the plaintiff had not established an adequate factual foundation for the expert opinion. The trial court ruled that the testimony was admissible. However, in its ruling granting the judgment n. o. v. following the verdict, the trial court reversed itself and held that Goldberg's testimony should have been excluded for lack of foundation. Moreover, the court ruled that the plaintiff had not produced the best available evidence, namely its books and records, to corroborate its accountant's testimony that lost revenue and lost profit were equivalent.

The trial court, upon reviewing the record in the absence of Goldberg's expert testimony and the best available evidence, concluded that the record contained insufficient evidence as a matter of law to sustain the verdict. Accordingly, the motion for judgment n. o. v. was granted. We find this ruling to be error.

It is readily apparent that the fundamental reason in finding insufficient evidence to support a judgment n. o. v. relates to the trial court's holding that it erred in its admission of certain evidence. This ground is "not appropriate" in connection with the motion for judgment n. o. v., rather it is a proper consideration in granting the motion for new trial. See Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Duncan, 311 U.S. 243, 249, 251, 61 S. Ct. 189, 85 L.Ed. 147 (1940); 6A Moore, Federal Practice § 59.08 2 at 3777 (2d ed. 1972). Although the trial court found insufficient evidence to sustain the verdict, it did so only after excluding plaintiff's expert testimony which had been presented to the jury. This was error. In ruling on the sufficiency of evidence the trial court must take the record as presented to the jury and cannot enter judgment on a record altered by the elimination of incompetent evidence. We find appropriate the language of the Supreme Court of New Mexico in Townsend v. United States Rubber Co., 74 N.M. 206, 392 P.2d 404, 406-407 (1964), where a similar ruling was made. The court observed:

"A motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, like a motion for a directed verdict, does not raise questions relating to the competency or admissibility of evidence. Therefore, in considering a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the evidence must be taken as it existed at the close of the trial, and evidence admitted over objection cannot be excluded nor can evidence be included which was improperly rejected. Whether competent or incompetent, all evidence submitted to the jury must be considered by the court in ruling on a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and such a judgment cannot be entered on a diminished record after the elimination of incompetent evidence. The proper remedy for disposing of evidence erroneously admitted during the course of the trial is a new trial where motion therefor has been made. . . .

". . . If, after the return of the verdict, the court had been of the opinion that it was based upon incompetent testimony erroneously admitted during the course of the trial, the court had no alternative but to grant a new trial rather than the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict."

The subsequent ruling, after the verdict, that the expert opinion was not admissible after it had been originally received and considered by the jury, placed plaintiff in a relative position of unfair reliance. If plaintiff had been forewarned during the trial that such testimony was not admissible it conceivably could have supplied further foundation or even totally different evidence. Under these circumstances the grant of the judgment n. o. v. was not a proper remedy.

The additional ground on which the trial court issued the judgment n. o. v. was that the plaintiff should have produced its books and records to support its contention that lost revenue and lost profit were the same.

Plaintiff's accountant, one Goldfarb, testified that there was little difference in operating expenses between the two towers and that lost revenue was a valid estimate of lost profit. The trial court subsequently reasoned that the plaintiff should have also produced the actual records to support this testimony.

After...