Godwin v. Ace Iron Metal Co.

27 Citing cases

  1. Fera v. Village Plaza, Inc.

    396 Mich. 639 (Mich. 1976)   Cited 58 times
    Upholding lost profits award in breach of lease action where plaintiffs offered testimony of numerous experts in relevant industry about lost profits

    Particularly is this true where it is defendant's own act or neglect that has caused the imprecision.'" Godwin v Ace Iron Metal Co, 376 Mich. 360, 368; 137 N.W.2d 151 (1965). While we might have found plaintiffs' proofs lacking had we been members of the jury, that is not the standard of review we employ.

  2. JAC Enters. of Kawkawlin, LLC v. DeHate

    No. 319792 (Mich. Ct. App. Apr. 14, 2015)

    Wolverine Upholstery Co v Ammerman, 1 Mich App 235, 244; 135 NW2d 572 (1965), quoting 15 Am Jur, Damages, § 23, 414-416. See also Godwin v Ace Iron & Metal Co, 376 Mich 360, 369; 137 NW2d 151 (1965). "The type of uncertainty which will bar recovery of damages is uncertainty as to the fact of the damage and not as to its amount . . . ."

  3. Farm Credit Services v. Weldon

    232 Mich. App. 662 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 93 times
    Holding that a fiduciary relationship does not generally arise in the bank lender and borrower relationship

    I disagree. Once injury is proved, recovery is not precluded simply because proof of the amount of damages is not mathematically precise. Godwin v. Ace Iron Metal Co, 376 Mich. 360, 368; 137 N.W.2d 151 (1965). Further, where reasonable minds could differ regarding the level of certainty to which damages have been proved, this Court is careful not to invade the fact finding of the jury and substitute its own judgment.

  4. Berrios v. Miles, Inc.

    226 Mich. App. 470 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 28 times
    Finding plaintiff discovered his injury when he tested positive for HIV, even though he did not suffer the symptoms associated with acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) until seven years later

    Although damages based on speculation or conjecture are not recoverable, Sutter v Biggs, 377 Mich. 80, 86; 139 N.W.2d 684 (1966), damages are not speculative merely because they cannot be ascertained with mathematical precision. Godwin v Ace Iron Metal Co, 376 Mich. 360, 368; 137 N.W.2d 151 (1965); Hofmann, supra. It is sufficient if a reasonable basis for computation exists, although the result be only approximate.

  5. Severn v. Sperry Corp.

    212 Mich. App. 406 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 47 times
    Holding that a party who accepts mediation evaluation may recover actual costs necessitated by rejection of evaluation by opposing party if that party does not succeed in obtaining a more favorable verdict at trial

    When a plaintiff proves injury, recovery is not precluded simply because proof of the amount of damages is not mathematically precise. Godwin v Ace Iron Metal Co, 376 Mich. 360, 368; 137 N.W.2d 151 (1965). Further, where reasonable minds could differ regarding the level of certainty to which damages have been proved, this Court is careful not to invade the fact finding of the jury and substitute its own judgment.

  6. Hofmann v. Auto Club Ins

    211 Mich. App. 55 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 118 times
    Holding that certain dermathermography instruments that "monitor the body's physiology by measuring a person's skin temperature at each spinal level for the purpose of determining subluxated or misaligned vertebrae" were therefore limited to spinal analysis and within the scope of Subparagraphs and

    Although damages based on speculation or conjecture are not recoverable, Sutter v Biggs, 377 Mich. 80, 86; 139 N.W.2d 684 (1966), damages are not speculative merely because they cannot be ascertained with mathematical precision. Godwin v Ace Iron Metal Co, 376 Mich. 360, 368; 137 N.W.2d 151 (1965). It is sufficient if a reasonable basis for computation exists, although the result be only approximate.

  7. Giannetti v. Cornillie

    209 Mich. App. 96 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 8 times

    However, where injury to some degree is found, a court does not preclude recovery for lack of precise proof but must do the best it can with what it has by way of evidence. Godwin v Ace Iron Metal Co, 376 Mich. 360, 368; 137 N.W.2d 151 (1965). This rule particularly applies when it is the defendant's own conduct that has caused the imprecision.

  8. Jim-Bob, Inc v. Mehling

    178 Mich. App. 71 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 105 times
    In Jim-Bob, the Michigan Court of Appeals adopted a balancing test for assessing whether a defendant's acts were intentional and improper.

    Body Rustproofing, Inc v Michigan Bell Telephone Co, 149 Mich. App. 385, 390; 385 N.W.2d 797 (1986). 396 Mich. 639, 648; 242 N.W.2d 372 (1976), reh den 397 Mich. 956 (1976), quoting Godwin v Ace Iron Metal Co, 376 Mich. 360, 368; 137 N.W.2d 151 (1965). "[W]here injury to some degree is found, we do not preclude recovery for lack of precise proof.

  9. Evans v. Van Kleek

    110 Mich. App. 798 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981)   Cited 11 times
    In Evans v Van Kleek, 110 Mich.App. 798, 803; 314 N.W.2d 486 (1981), a landlord was held liable for damage resulting from defective electrical wiring that the landlord installed, because the landlord knew or should have known about the defect but failed to disclose it, and the lessee had no reason to discover the defect.

    The court found the loss to be roughly $20,000 and applied a 25% depreciation factor. The rule in such cases is set forth in Godwin v Ace Iron Metal Co, 376 Mich. 360, 368-369; 137 N.W.2d 151 (1965), wherein the Court said: "`But where injury to some degree is found, we do not preclude recovery for lack of precise proof.

  10. Willis v. Ed Hudson Towing, Inc.

    109 Mich. App. 344 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981)   Cited 19 times

    Mathematical precision in the assessment of damages is not required, where from the very nature of the circumstances precision is unattainable, particularly where the defendant's own act causes the imprecision. Godwin v Ace Iron Metal Co, 376 Mich. 360, 368; 137 N.W.2d 151 (1965). Public policy demands that, when damages are not susceptible of precise calculation because of an act of the wrongdoer, the risk of giving more than fair compensation be cast upon the wrongdoer.