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.
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 . . . ."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.