PAYING FOR HARM COMPENSATORY DAMAGES
A. The Basic Principle: Restoring Plaintiff to His Rightful Position
United States v. Hatahley
Δ gvt took Π Indians horses and burros and sold them to glue factory
fundamental principal of damages is to restore injured party, as nearly as possible, to the position he would have been in had it not been for the wrong of the other party
Π were entitled to market value (or replacement cost) of their horses and burros plus the use value of the animals during the interim b/t taking and the time the could have replaced the animals
Π argued their livestock was unique but court said a replacement cost could still be determined by considering evidence of availability of like animals, together w/ all other elements which go to make up market value
court also found Πs damages were limited to the time in which a prudent person would replace the destroyed horses and burros
court also said that pain and suffering is personal and individual matter, not a common injury, and must be treated so
lower court gave a “one size fits all” damages—needs to be individualized of each person’s mental anguish
Notes on the Basic Principles
argument for restoring Π to rightful position is based on corrective justice — Π shouldn’t be made to suffer b/c of wrongdoing and if we restore Π to his rightful position, he will not suffer
one-satisfaction rule: Π is only entitled to one recovery for each item of damage
McDermott v. AmClyde: jury found total damages of $2.1 mil w/ non-settling Δ 70% at fault; therefore he was liable for 70% of $2.1 million regardless of what the settling Δs paid the Π
economic proponents think law should encourage profitability even if it harms so long as violators pay for damage they cause
B. Value as the Measure of the Rightful Position
United States v. Fifty Acres of Land — substitute costs
Π had to buy new land fill at $723,000 but only got $225,000 for fair market value of old one
just compensation normally is to be measured by “market value of the property at the time of the taking contemporaneously paid in money” and deviation from this measure allowed only when “market value has been too difficult to find, or when its application would result in manifest injustice to owner or public”
fair market value constitutes “just compensation” for those private citizens who must replace their condemned property w/ more expensive substitutes and w/ our prior holdings that the 5th amendt doesn’t require any award for consequential damages arising from a condemnation
“value of property springs from subjective needs and attitudes; its value to the owner may therefore differ widely from its value to the taker. Most things have general demand which gives them a value transferable from one owner to another… this transferable value has an external validity which makes it a fair measure of public obligation to compensate”
it is not fair for gvt to have to buy a whole new (and better) landfill but it is unfair to take city’s landfill and then make them go somewhere else where it would cost a lot more
Notes on Value
familiar damage measures include
the value of property taken or destroyed,
the difference b/t the value of property before damage and value after damage, and
the difference b/t the contract price and the market value of property promised but not delivered
some things have value even w/out a market (i.e. art)
O’Brien Bros v. Helen B. Moran
gvt sunk
the market are not excluded sentimental values
even nonmarket values are recoverable if sentimental value is the only substantial value of the thing lost
Decatur County Ag-Services, Inc. v. Young
Πs crops damaged after / even though paid Δ to spray w/ insecticide
damages to crops are computed at the time of harvest
to the extent that Π elected not to sell his harvest at the time it was first marketable, he was speculating that its market value would be greater at some later date and the risk of such speculation (gambling) is not chargeable to Δ
(court also notes that there could be in some cases a deduction where it appears that costs were reduced by the lower yield)
possible damages:
reliance-y damages: cost that it took to plant crop but no lost profits
value of crops at time of spraying: court rejects b/c no market for ungrown crops
value of crop at time of harvesting: court applies this rule
Notes on Property That Fluctuates in Value
standard rule is to value property at the time of the loss but w/ crops, it is time of harvest
problem of fluctuating values frequently litigated in cases where Δ deprived Π of investment securities
3 main approaches
· few courts value loss at time of wrong
· larger group of states resolves doubts against Δ by awarding highest value b/t time of wrong and time of trial, time of filing suit etc
