Gossage v. Philadelphia, Baltimore & Washington Railroad

Page, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellant’s vessel was destroyed by a locomotive of the appellee falling upon it through an open draw. This suit was brought to recover damages therefor. ⁶⁹⁹ At the trial, it was admitted that the accident was caused by the negligence of the appellee’s servants and employees, and that the company is liable for the loss of the boat, but it was contended it was not guilty of such negligence as should subject it to a verdict for anything more than the actual loss of the appellant, and that the question to be submitted in this action is the “actual damages” to the appellant. To show this, the witness Todd was asked what the gross earnings of the vessel had been during July, August, September, October and November, 1903, and what the total amount of expense in running the vessel had been.

The purpose of the appellant being, as was stated, to show what the boat could have earned between the date of accident and the date of trial. The refusal of the Court on the appellee’s objection, to permit the question for the purpose stated constitutes the appellant’s second exception. He contends that in estimating the damages he was eutitled to recover not only for the loss of the vessel but for the loss and injury to his established business. There had been evidence showing that he had chartered the vessel in 1899 and by the agreement was to receive forty per cent of the net profits.

He now sought to show what the net profits had been for the four months preceding the accident, for the corn sideration of the jury in estimating his “actual damages.” He relies, to support his contention, among other cases upon Evans v. Murphy, 87 Md. 503 ; Shafer v. Wilson, 44 Md. 280 , in which it is held that a plaintiff may recover damages for the breaking up of his business. While this general rule has always been maintained in this State and elsewhere, in its application it has always been held that mere conjectural or speculative damages, depending on future contingencies, cannot be recovered. Shafer v. Wilson, supra; Abbott v. Gatch, 13 Md. 315 . When the amount of the profits can be shown with reasonable certainty, such profits constitute to that extent a safe measure of damages.

Lawson v. Price, 45 Md. 138 . And it must also be shown with reasonable certainty that the injured, party has been deprived of his profits as a legitimate result of the injury. Lawson v. Price, 45 Md. 123 ; Lange v. Wagner, ⁷⁰⁰ 52 Md. 320 ; Evans v. Murphy, 87 Md. 503 ; Central Trust Co. v. Arctic Machine, 77 Md. 235 . These principles were succinctly stated in the case of Svea v. Packman, 92 Md. 479 , as follows: “In an action of tort, the loss of profits in a trade or business may be recovered if it be the direct result of the defendant’s wrongful act, and is proved tyith sufficient certainty.” The narr. shows the appellant’s action to be a claim for the total loss of the vessel, “together with the usual profits and earnings from the said vessel.” The proof shows that the only profits and earnings he wa’s receiving at the time of the vessel’s destruction were forty per cent of her net earnings.

What these would amount to would depend upon many contingencies. It could not be ascertained with certainty, or even with probability, from past earnings of the boat. The future profits would depend upon the chances and hazards attending the navigation of a vessel of this character, the 'condition of the weather, the quantity of freight, the rates for transportation it could obtain, and upon many other matters, about which, no safe calculation could be made. In Crabbs v. Koontz, 69 Md. 50 , the plaintiff claimed as damages for being deprived of a thresher, the loss of the future earnings of the.machine, but it was held that the opinions of witnesses as to the future profits were