Roberts v. Pilot Freight Carriers, Inc.
160 S.E.2d 712, 1968 N.C. LEXIS 637, 273 N.C. 600 (1968)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To recover lost profits for the loss of use of a damaged commercial vehicle, a plaintiff must first prove that they made a reasonable effort to secure a substitute rental vehicle and were unable to do so. Absent such proof, the measure of damages is limited to the reasonable cost of renting a similar vehicle for the period necessary for repairs.
Facts:
- The defendant's employee, Bost, was driving a tractor-trailer on a highway.
- Bost passed a dump truck being driven by the plaintiff's employee, Goldston.
- After passing, Bost signaled a right turn and moved back into the right lane directly in front of the dump truck.
- Immediately upon re-entering the lane, Bost made a sharp right turn into a driveway.
- The plaintiff's dump truck, which was following closely, was unable to stop and collided with Bost's tractor-trailer.
- Plaintiff's dump truck sustained significant damage, rendering it unusable for his hauling business.
- The truck's value decreased from $2,500 to $1,000, and repairs were estimated to cost $991.38 and take three to four weeks.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff sued the defendant in a trial court to recover damages for his dump truck resulting from a collision.
- At trial, the court admitted plaintiff's evidence of lost profits and submitted an issue to the jury allowing an award of damages for loss of use of the truck.
- The defendant's motions for nonsuit were overruled by the trial court.
- Following a verdict and judgment, the defendant appealed to the state's highest court, assigning as error the trial court's decisions regarding the admission of lost profits evidence and the submission of the loss-of-use issue to the jury.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
May a plaintiff recover lost profits for the loss of use of a damaged commercial vehicle without first showing that a substitute vehicle was unavailable for rent?
Opinions:
Majority - Sharp, J.
No. A plaintiff may not recover lost profits for the loss of use of a commercial vehicle without first carrying the burden of proving that no substitute vehicle could be rented. The ordinary measure of damages for loss of use is the cost of renting a similar vehicle during a reasonable period for repairs, which reflects the injured party's duty to mitigate damages. Only after demonstrating that a substitute was unobtainable through reasonable effort may a plaintiff recover lost profits, provided they can be established with reasonable certainty. Here, the plaintiff failed to show he could not hire a similar truck in the area, offering only evidence that one specific company did not have a rental. Therefore, he did not lay the necessary foundation to recover lost profits, and the trial court erred in submitting that issue to the jury.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle of mitigation of damages in the context of commercial vehicle loss. It establishes a clear prerequisite for the recovery of lost profits, which are considered special damages and are generally disfavored compared to more certain measures like rental costs. By placing the burden of proof squarely on the plaintiff to show a substitute was unavailable, the court prevents plaintiffs from recovering speculative profits when a more economical alternative exists. This holding protects defendants from inflated damage claims and requires plaintiffs to take active, reasonable steps to minimize their own losses following a tortious injury to their property.
