Tort Law

Brien Roche Law > Tort Law Resources > Tort Case Law > Tort Law Cases – P > Proof Of Damages Cases Summarized By Accident Lawyer

Proof Of Damages Cases Summarized By Accident Lawyer

Fairfax Injury Lawyer Brien Roche Summarizes Proof of Damages Cases

Brien Roche

 

This page within Virginia Tort Case Law is a compilation of cases reported by the Virginia Supreme Court and summarized by Brien Roche dealing with the topic of Proof of Damages. For more information on damages see the pages on Wikipedia.   

Proof of Damages-Cases

2003 Honsinger v. Egan, 266 Va. 269, 585 S.E.2d 597. 

Defendant offered jury instructions on damages that called for proof of damages based upon reasonable degree of medical certainty. That is incorrect standard. Burden is on parties to furnish trial court with proper and appropriate instructions that address their theory of the case. When instruction is not a correct statement of the law or is not supported by the evidence, the trial court is not required to correct or amend the instruction. 

1989 Oden v. Salch, 237 Va. 525, 379 S.E.2d 346. 

In proof of damages it is proper to place before jury all facts and circumstances having any tendency to show damages or their probable amount so as to enable jury to make most intelligible and probable estimate. 

1986 Medcom, Inc. v. C. Arthur Weaver Co., 232 Va. 80, 348 S.E.2d 243. 

Proof of damages to absolute certainty as to amount of loss is not essential, but claimant must prove with reasonable certainty amount of damages and cause from which they resulted. 

1986 Miller v. Johnson, 231 Va. 177, 343 S.E.2d 301. 

Damages which cannot be established with reasonable certainty are speculative and cannot be recovered. 

1982 Naccash v. Burger, 223 Va. 406, 290 S.E.2d 825. 

Wrongful birth case. Plaintiff must establish direct injury and not just indirect injury in order to recover. Emotional distress and medical expenses are direct damages. Funeral expenses are indirect since Tay-Sachs caused child’s death. 

1982 Todt v. Show, 223 Va. 123, 286 S.E.2d 211. 

Lay testimony of causal connection between automobile accident and injury is admissible for whatever weight fact finder may choose to give it, even when medical testimony fails to establish causal connection expressly. 

1982 National Energy Corp. v. O’Quinn, 223 Va. 83, 286 S.E.2d 181. 

Burden is on plaintiff to produce evidence to show within reasonable degree of certainty defendant’s share of damage. 

1981 Peterson v. Neme, 222 Va. 477, 281 S.E.2d 869. 

Lay testimony of causal connection between an automobile accident and injury is admissible for whatever weight fact finder may choose to give it, even when medical testimony fails to establish causal connection expressly. 

1981 Harkins, Inc. v. Reynolds Ass’n, 221 Va. 1128, 277 S.E.2d 222. 

Construction claim. Damages need not be proved with mathematical exactness. Intelligent estimate or reasonable basis of calculation, is all that is required. Damage expert to testify to damages as of October 1978. Trial court ruled damages to be measured as of June 1975. Expert properly used nine percent deflation factor to discount October 1978 damages to June 1975 level. 

1981 Sampson v. Sampson, 221 Va. 896, 275 S.E.2d 597. 

Appraiser based his evaluation of some items on statements of witnesses who had seen property. This evidence is inadmissible. 

1974 Hale v. Fawcett, 214 Va. 583, 202 S.E.2d 923. 

To recover damages plaintiff must prove with reasonable certainty damages and their cause. In this action involving trespass by animals, plaintiff did not prove that part of damages for which defendant could be held responsible. 

1973 Mullen v. Brantley, 213 Va. 765, 195 S.E.2d 696. 

Damages for breach of contract involving loss of business from opening pizza parlor can only be based on speculation and conjecture. Profits derived from similar operations at other locations do not present reasonable basis upon which to judge with any reasonable degree of certainty what profits would have been. 

1973 M & B Constr. Co. v. Mitchell, 213 Va. 755, 195 S.E.2d 873. 

Damages need not be measured with exactness and precision. When defendant is liable for some damages, quantum may be fixed when circumstances permit intelligent estimate. 

1966 Hailes v. Gonzales, 207 Va. 612, 151 S.E.2d 388. 

Plaintiff must show amount of his damages with reasonable certainty. 

1966 Phillips v. Stewart, 207 Va. 214, 148 S.E.2d 784. 

Plaintiff injured when struck in crosswalk; claimed that because he could not care for his cattle, he was forced to sell them at loss. Such loss held too remote and speculative. 

1966 Holz v. Coates Motor Co., 206 Va. 894, 147 S.E.2d 152. 

Proof of Damages must be with reasonable certainty but not absolute certainty. 

1963 Barnes v. Graham Va. Quarries, Inc., 204 Va. 414, 132 S.E.2d 395. 

Proof of Damages must be susceptible to proof with reasonable degree of certainty both in their nature and causation. No recovery can be had where it is uncertain whether plaintiff suffered any damages, unless it be established with reasonable certainty that damages sought resulted from act complained of. 

1961 Smith v. Hensley, 202 Va. 700, 119 S.E.2d 332. 

Proof of damages. Plaintiff claimed that inability to pay $4,000 mortgage note arose out of breach of warranty. Too speculative. 

1960 Gertler v. Bowling, 202 Va. 213, 116 S.E.2d 268.

Plaintiff is not required to prove with mathematical precision exact amount of loss when existence of damage is established and facts proven are such as to permit intelligent estimate. Evidence of original cost of used auto is admissible on issue of its value at time of loss.

1956 Golf Club v. Briggs, 198 Va. 586, 95 S.E.2d 233. 

One whose wrongful conduct has rendered difficult ascertainment of precise damage suffered by plaintiff, is not entitled to complain that they cannot be measured with same precision as would otherwise be possible. Mere difficulty in assessment of damages is not bar to their recovery where right to them has been established. 

1956 Worrie v. Boze, 198 Va. 533, 95 S.E.2d 192. 

Proof of damages. In action involving injury to business or loss of profits, where existence of loss has been established, absolute certainty in proving its quantum not required. 

1953 Wine v. Beach, 194 Va. 601, 74 S.E.2d 149. 

Plaintiffs unelaborated testimony that her property had been damaged to extent of $1,000 was held insufficient to support plaintiff’s verdict, where court order has defined measure of damages. Fact that this testimony was not objected to means it is admissible but does not necessarily add to its probative effect. 

1952 Silvey v. Johnston, 193 Va. 677, 70 S.E.2d 280. 

Proof of damages to absolute certainty as to amount of damages is not essential when existence of loss is established and facts are such as permit intelligent estimate of damages. 

1950 E.I. DuPont DeNemours & Co. v. Universal Moulded Prods. Corp., 191 Va. 525, 62 S.E.2d 233. 

Breach of warranty action (pre-Code law). Proof of damages to absolute certainty as to amount of loss or damage is not essential when existence of loss is established and facts and circumstances proven are such as to permit intelligent and probable estimate of amount of damage. 

1943 Jefferson Std. Ins. Co. v. Hedrick, 181 Va. 824, 27 S.E.2d 198. 

One should not be allowed to escape liability simply because precise amount of damages is uncertain; however, there must be sufficient facts and circumstances to permit intelligent and probable estimate of damages.

 

Contact Us For A Free Consultation

Proof Of Damages Cases Summarized By Accident Lawyer

Contact Us For A Free Consultation

Contact Us For A Free Consultation