ILNews

7th Circuit upholds jury award reduction

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a District Court's grant of a motion for judgment as a matter of law on a breach of contract claim, finding a previously granted jury award of damages was based on speculation.

In John Wasson v. Peabody Coal Co., No. 07-2758, John Wasson appealed the decision by the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, New Albany Division, which overturned a $350,000 verdict in his favor following a bifurcated jury trial in a breach of contract suit with Peabody Coal Co. Wasson claimed the company underpaid royalties he was entitled to for coal mined on his property.

The District Court granted Peabody's motion for judgment as a matter of law and reduced the jury's award to less than $1,000. Wasson appealed, arguing the District Court erred in denying his motion for a continuance prior to trial, in barring his expert witness from testifying, and the court shouldn't have set aside the jury award for damages because there was ample evidence for the jury to find in his favor.

But the 7th Circuit disagreed with Wasson's arguments, finding him partly to blame for wanting more time to review requested records from Peabody. His interrogatories were very broad in scope, which may have expanded his original inquiries, wrote Judge Diane Wood. Wasson had ample time to review the documents to determine whether additional discovery was necessary before expiration of the discovery deadline, but he didn't act on the matter, wrote the judge.

Wasson's expert witness was his accountant, and his report claimed the coal price Peabody paid to Wasson was too low; however the accountant used data from a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission report, which he had never used before. The accountant even admitted he was unaware of how to use the data of the report. The accountant's opinion wasn't based on sufficient facts or data, nor was it a product of reliable principles or methods as is required by Fed. R. Evid. 702, wrote Judge Wood

The District Court was correct in ruling the jury's award of damages to Wasson must be set aside because they were based on nothing but speculation, wrote the judge. Review of a trial exhibit Wasson claimed supported his award was nothing but his scratch-paperwork guessing what his damages would be. The reduction of the award to $965.62 was the actual amount Peabody admitted to owing Wasson.

"The district court held that it could 'identify no reasonable basis in the evidence for the jury's $350,000 damage award to Mr. Wasson.' Neither can we," wrote Judge Wood.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT