Section 5 Admissible

• Library: Damages 2012

In McDonald v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Co., 401 S.W.2d 465, 471 (Mo. 1966), the plaintiff testified that his wages before the injury were $88 per week. He was permanently disabled from his usual occupation and had earned hardly anything since the injury except a few dollars fishing to buy groceries. The Court noted that this evidence satisfied the plaintiff’s obligation of showing:

· the amount of his earnings before the injury; and

· that the earnings were gathered from his usual work or employment for which he was peculiarly fitted and which he was compelled to abandon because of his injury.

In Parks v. Thompson, 285 S.W.2d 687, 689 (Mo. 1956), before his injury, the plaintiff earned $300 a month as a cab driver. This testimony alone was considered sufficient to justify a submission of lost future earnings.

In Northcutt v. St. Louis Public Service Co., 48 S.W.2d 89, 90–91 (Mo. App. E.D. 1932), before the injury, the plaintiff was engaged as a tree surgeon, earning $45 per week. After the injury, he worked as a salesman earning $20 per week. This was sufficient to justify a submission of lost earnings.

In Stewart v. St. Louis Public Service Co., 233 S.W.2d 759, 767 (Mo. App. E.D. 1950), just six weeks before the accident, the plaintiff began working at a job on a commission basis. He earned approximately $185 per week. The court held that this six-week period did not make the loss speculative; this evidence was for the jury to weigh, noting that the plaintiff also presented evidence of other prior jobs.

In Robinson v. Highway Management Systems, Inc., 583 F. Supp. 1558, 1560 (W.D. Mo. 1984), the plaintiff, a salesman, was fraudulently induced into entering into a franchise agreement. The court permitted him to testify that he quit a job paying approximately $66,000 per year to operate this new franchise. During the year he operated it, he earned only $41,900. The court calculated the plaintiff’s lost wages at $24,000 (the difference between his prior salary and his earnings during the year in question). It also held that the plaintiff could recover lost wages for only one year because this loss was not because of disability but rather a temporary disruption in career.

Williams v. Daus, 114 S.W.3d 351 (Mo. App. S.D. 2003), illustrates that not only the testimony of the economist (and his consideration of the plaintiff’s past earning history) should be considered in reaching the threshold of “reasonable degree of economic certainty,” but also the medical...