No, that would be getting paid twice for the same thing. The main payment Luby's got for its property was calculated using methods that already considered how profitable the restaurant was. Think of it this way: the price someone would pay for a restaurant already depends on how much money it makes. Since the jury's payment already covered the value of a profitable business location, giving Luby's extra money specifically for 'lost profits' would be a double payment, which isn't allowed.

No, it's not right to give money for lost profits in this case. The money given for the property's value already considered how much money the restaurant could make. This is because the experts looked at how much similar restaurants sell for and how much money they make. Giving more money for lost profits means paying the restaurant twice for the same problem. This is different from another case we looked at before, where the experts only looked at how much it would cost to replace the property. In that case, extra money for lost profits was okay because the property value didn't include how much money the business could make. About the instructions for the jury, I think the judge was right not to give extra explanations. The jury could understand what was part of the property without special instructions.

Yes, a separate award for lost profits constitutes an impermissible double recovery under these circumstances. Texas law generally does not allow lost profits as a separate item of damage in partial takings cases; instead, profitability is considered as a factor affecting the property's market value. A separate award is only permissible if the market value compensation did not already account for the property's ability to generate income. Here, the jury's award for the property's market value was based on the State's expert testimony, which heavily relied on the income and comparable sales approaches. Both of these valuation methods inherently factor in the property's profitability. Because Luby's was already compensated for its property's income-generating potential through the main condemnation award, the additional award for lost profits was an impermissible double recovery.

No. The award of lost profits constitutes an impermissible double recovery. I find that the jury's compensation for the market value of the property already accounted for its profit-generating potential, as evidenced by the use of the sales comparison and income approaches in the valuation. Therefore, additional compensation for lost profits results in the plaintiff being paid twice for the same economic harm. The profitability of the restaurant was a factor in arriving at the 'market value' of the property, so it cannot also recover for lost profits. This is consistent with our precedent in Whataburger, where we held that lost profits would not constitute a double recovery so long as the profitability of the property was not a factor in arriving at its market value. Here, unlike in Whataburger, the jury relied heavily on valuation methods that considered the property's ability to generate money. Regarding the jury charge issue, I find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing Luby's requested modifications. The charge submitted the central, controlling question for the jury's determination and provided sufficient guidance on the legal definition of market value. While additional instructions on fixtures might have been helpful, they were not reasonably necessary for the jury to render a proper verdict.

State v. Luby's Fuddruckers Restaurants, LLC

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot