Bigelow et al. v. RKO Radio Pictures, Inc. et al.
327 U.S. 251 (1946)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a defendant's wrongful act prevents a plaintiff from proving the precise amount of damages, the defendant bears the risk of the resulting uncertainty. A jury may award damages based on a just and reasonable estimate derived from relevant data, such as a comparison of the plaintiff's profits before and after the wrongful act or a comparison to an uninjured competitor.
Facts:
- Petitioners, owners of the independent Jackson Park Theatre in Chicago, were exhibitors of motion pictures.
- Respondents, major film distributors and theatre chains, entered into a conspiracy to control the distribution of films in the Chicago area.
- The conspiracy created a discriminatory 'release system' that gave theatres owned by or affiliated with the respondents preferential access to new films in 'first-run' and 'pre-release' weeks.
- This system relegated petitioners' theatre to a later 'general release' run, preventing it from showing films until after its primary competitors, who were part of the conspiracy, had already exhibited them.
- Before July 1937, petitioners were able to obtain some films that had not been previously shown by their competitors.
- Following the widespread adoption of 'double features,' virtually all films were used by the preferred theatres before they became available to petitioners, completely cutting off their access to films not previously shown in the area.
Procedural Posture:
- Petitioners (Bigelow et al.) sued respondents in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for treble damages under the Sherman and Clayton Acts.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial on the sole issue of damages.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the petitioners for $120,000.
- The trial court entered a judgment for treble damages, totaling $360,000.
- Respondents, as appellants, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that the evidence of damages was insufficient, and directed entry of judgment for the respondents.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is evidence of damages in an antitrust case, based on a comparison of the plaintiff's business profits before and after the defendant's illegal conduct or a comparison with a competitor's profits, sufficient to support a jury verdict, even if the defendant's actions make a more precise calculation impossible?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Chief Justice Stone
Yes. Where a defendant's tortious acts prevent a more precise computation of damages, the jury may make a just and reasonable estimate based on relevant data. The Court reasoned that the defendant should not profit from their own wrongdoing by making damages difficult to prove. The most elementary conceptions of justice require that the wrongdoer bear the risk of the uncertainty which their own wrong has created. The evidence presented by the petitioners, including a comparison of their profits before and after the full impact of the conspiracy and a comparison of their receipts with those of a favored competitor, was sufficient to support the jury's verdict. Citing precedents like Story Parchment Co. and Eastman Kodak Co., the Court affirmed that difficulty in ascertaining the amount of damages should not be confused with the right of recovery for a proven legal injury.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Frankfurter
No. The evidence of damage was not sufficient to support the verdict. The dissent argues that the majority opinion fails to observe the critical distinction between uncertainty as to the amount of damages and failure to prove the fact of legal injury. While a wrongdoer must bear the risk of uncertainty in the amount, the plaintiff still has the burden of proving that they were, in fact, injured as a certain result of the wrong. Justice Frankfurter believed it was wholly speculative whether the petitioners' business would have been more profitable under competitive conditions, as the record lacked proof that the conspiracy was the exclusive cause of their diminished receipts.
Analysis:
This decision significantly lowers the burden of proof for plaintiffs seeking damages in complex antitrust cases. By establishing that the wrongdoer bears the risk of uncertainty in calculating damages, the Court makes it easier for victims of anticompetitive behavior to recover. It solidifies the validity of using comparative evidence, such as 'before-and-after' profit analysis and 'yardstick' comparisons to competitors, to establish the quantum of damages. This precedent encourages private enforcement of antitrust laws by assuring plaintiffs that they can succeed even if the defendant's illegal scheme makes a precise accounting of losses impossible.
Unlock the full brief for Bigelow et al. v. RKO Radio Pictures, Inc. et al.