Felder v. Physiotherapy Associates
505 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 20, 215 Ariz. 154, 158 P.3d 877 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a personal injury action, a plaintiff's claim for lost earning capacity is not too speculative to be decided by a jury, even if the future career path is uncertain, provided the claim is supported by the best evidence reasonably available, such as qualified expert testimony and comparative data, which provides a rational standard for calculating damages.
Facts:
- In 1992, the Milwaukee Brewers drafted Kenneth Felder, a baseball player, in the first round of the Major League draft.
- Felder progressed through the Brewers' minor league system and by 1996 was playing at the AAA level, the highest level before the major leagues.
- After recovering from an elbow injury and surgery, the Brewers sent Felder to Physiotherapy Associates for physical rehabilitation in 1997.
- In February 1998, one of Physiotherapy's therapists instructed Felder to take batting practice in a cage that was testified to be improperly designed and maintained for hitting.
- On February 25, 1998, while hitting, a ball ricocheted off a concrete lip in the batter's box and struck Felder in his left eye.
- Felder sustained severe and permanent eye injuries, including a fractured orbital bone, a ruptured cornea, and irremediable retinal damage, leaving him with a blind spot and blurry vision.
- As a direct result of the eye injury, Felder failed the Brewers' spring training physical.
- The Brewers subsequently released Felder from his contract, effectively ending his professional baseball career.
Procedural Posture:
- Kenneth Felder filed a negligence lawsuit against Physiotherapy Associates in an Arizona trial court.
- At the first trial, the jury found for Felder and awarded him $6,000,000 in damages.
- Physiotherapy, as the appellant, appealed to the Arizona Court of Appeals, the intermediate appellate court.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial, finding the evidence of lost major league earnings was too speculative.
- The Arizona Supreme Court, the state's highest court, denied Felder's petition for review.
- A second trial was held, where the jury again found for Felder, awarding him $4,900,000.
- The trial court denied Physiotherapy's post-trial motion for a new trial.
- Physiotherapy, as the appellant, appealed the judgment from the second trial to the Arizona 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:
Does a professional athlete's claim for lost future earning capacity as a major league player fail as a matter of law for being too speculative when the athlete had not yet reached the major leagues, but the claim is supported by expert testimony, past performance statistics, and data on comparable players?
Opinions:
Majority - Irvine, P.J.
No. A claim for lost earning capacity is not too speculative as a matter of law if supported by the best evidence reasonably available, even if the future outcome is uncertain. The court distinguished between the fact of damage, which was clearly established by Felder's career-ending injury, and the amount of damage. While absolute certainty as to the amount is not required, the jury must be guided by a rational standard. Unlike a high school athlete with a mere dream, Felder was a professional at the highest minor league level with a demonstrated ability. The expert testimony of Al Goldis, an experienced baseball executive, provided the jury with a non-speculative, rational basis for evaluating Felder's major league prospects and potential earnings, satisfying the requirement for 'stronger evidence' from the first appeal. The court held that it is the jury's role to weigh such difficult and conflicting evidence to determine damages for the loss of a chance at career advancement.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the 'reasonable certainty' standard required for proving damages for lost earning capacity in personal injury cases involving speculative future careers. It affirms that the loss of a significant career opportunity, such as a professional athlete's chance to reach the top level, is a compensable injury. The ruling establishes that such claims can proceed to a jury if supported by robust expert testimony, performance data, and comparable career information, even without a guarantee of future success. This precedent shifts the risk of uncertainty about the future from the injured plaintiff to the tortfeasor, ensuring that a wrongdoer cannot escape liability for substantial damages simply because the victim's career path was not yet fully realized.
