Washington v. American Community Stores Corp.
244 N.W.2d 286, 196 Neb. 624 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff may recover damages for loss of future earning capacity even without proof of past earnings in a particular field, provided they can establish the loss through evidence of their age, life expectancy, health, habits, talents, skill, experience, and training.
Facts:
- The plaintiff, 24 years old, was an employee of the state as an adult parole officer.
- Prior to the accident, the plaintiff had compiled an outstanding collegiate wrestling record of 103 wins and 4 losses, winning two NAIA national championships.
- Expert testimony established he was a prime candidate for the 1972 United States Olympic team and had the qualifications to become a great international wrestler.
- The plaintiff had intended to try out for the U.S. Olympic team and continued to train regularly, maintaining excellent physical condition.
- On April 11, 1972, the plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle collision caused by the defendant.
- As a result of the collision, the plaintiff suffered permanent injuries to his back and rib cage.
- The undisputed medical evidence concluded that these permanent injuries disabled the plaintiff from ever again participating in the sport of wrestling.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant in the District Court (trial court) to recover for injuries from a motor vehicle collision.
- At trial, the court directed a verdict against the defendant on the issue of liability.
- The jury considered the issue of damages and returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $76,000.
- The trial court entered a judgment based on the jury's verdict.
- The defendant (appellant) appealed the judgment to the Nebraska Supreme Court (this court), asserting that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict and that the jury was improperly instructed.
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 the law permit an injured plaintiff to recover damages for the impairment of future earning capacity in a specialized field where the plaintiff had demonstrated superior talent and skill but had not yet earned any income from that field prior to the injury?
Opinions:
Majority - White, C. J.
Yes. A plaintiff can recover for the loss of earning capacity as a separate element of general damages, and proof of actual past earnings in that specific field is not required. The law distinguishes between loss of past earnings, which are special damages requiring specific proof, and impairment of earning capacity, which are general damages. Recovery for the loss of the power to earn in the future is based on factors such as the plaintiff’s age, life expectancy, health, habits, talents, skill, experience, training, and industry. In this case, the plaintiff presented extensive and undisputed evidence of his exceptional talent, training, and potential for a successful career in wrestling. A jury, guided by experience and common sense, may weigh these elements to determine the monetary value of the plaintiff's loss without direct evidence of past earnings. Furthermore, the defendant cannot complain about the lack of evidence regarding potential salaries, as the defendant objected to and caused the exclusion of that very evidence at trial.
Dissenting - Moran, District Judge.
No. The plaintiff should not recover for loss of earning capacity because he failed to prove an essential element of his damages. The plaintiff did not produce evidence of his earnings from any source at the time of the injury or trial. The adversary system requires an injured party to prove their damages, and without evidence of past earnings, the claim for loss of earning capacity should not have been submitted to the jury.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the legal distinction between loss of earnings (a quantifiable, backward-looking measure of damages) and loss of earning capacity (a forward-looking measure based on potential). It is significant for allowing recovery for plaintiffs, such as students or highly skilled trainees, who are on the cusp of a promising career but have not yet begun to earn income from it. The precedent confirms that the destruction of potential is a compensable harm, and a defendant cannot escape liability for that harm simply because the plaintiff's career had not yet monetized. This impacts personal injury litigation by affirming that juries can value a lost future based on demonstrated talent and skill, rather than being limited to past pay stubs.
Unlock the full brief for Washington v. American Community Stores Corp.