ÿWPC  †BYEf?Ƽ)Lš&DT[WL@°Ñvv‘r?Nà”í­äò¾Ò*ƒÁ±ó?Õ®ÛÍÀ€ð- žž·¢eDL«=?zÊ9kÇÓ›w– »†ps‘\ÌûK—`½Ù„g^n &:êDw<"zLŸTTAÐ3ÿ0ékB©  2N:R—~[?Á@–®š•ÍÐXS:ÝÚJA}x6K®ÞŒÁö¸]gïþþÇ'•÷Mš]Ñ$x”„;ZÑt•‚™?©/„O®üãŽfß ò8î-—ÚpÅ1ª1ñ`‚„Š9‡¦#4{Å*àMøE ÅÜÞ™a#‰£c4FKU5 îf¨ÊAB‹Fy|qÜ¿ Î§•ØŒåSá³SÈ=“‰å#æ¡fBšíŸ€nÿë£ ^…ÅTÛÃɹtpMöð/Ž')i?€Ìkµ±ú¾5ñ5y3ÞÚ²¶'úÁÏ@çB­/e;ÁØGP #†ÈäùÍ;b?×àˆ]eÎd²ÂE²ðª§è“ ÈŠ²€#Ý<£÷@üµö h§ø¸45½æÒ{)KëÌFQ¦«9Á':;œ±½D¡ÈÚät3 ƒ03ÎS²*c­°¯’ìNÀ¦%äáwWý¨v\¸*# LU:W %‘ 0(—b ¿w@Ë4 n­.ÛãU:ääääääääääääääääääää AQÆo 0D5 0Dy 0D½ ½ D/ B0 BM D3j ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡- ù - ÛUÜDÝDÞDßUàUáDâãÓ€íF&tttzÄ3|xí«<þ6X9`("Courier NewTTXXxþ6X@ÉDQX@ ÷Ý ƒ"¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ XÿÓXXXÔÔ€ ÄX XÿÓÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€ XÿÓX ÄÔÐ  ÐÌMay€25,€1999ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAhÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular!"#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(('÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd'''''ÿÿdxdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ€°ÒÒ„°ÒÑ„°Ññãñ›ñãñÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ€ÑÑ7€ÿÓXXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñò òÔ€¼VC¼XXÔÓ  Óñíññãñßr€ )<,(j 8` `€€@Eô±` 8ttxP,°ð  rßñãññíññíññíññãñ›ñãñà@  êàIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÌñíñœßt€ )>.*jx*;` `€€@Eÿ` 8ttxPVÄð ; tß›ñíñà@¦¦(êàAT€NASHVILLEó óÔ€XÿÓX¼¼VCÔˆÐ Ä ÐÌÌœñÛñÌñÛññÛñÌñÛñ›ÌÌFORKLIFT€SYSTEMS,€INC.,à 8 àà  à)Ð < Œ Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ìà Ø àPlaintiff/Appellee,à à àà 8 àà  à)Ð X  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àAppeal€No.Ð î>  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è à01„A„01„9804„CH„00220Ð Ô$  МVñáñ.ñáñS.›à Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ð º  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àDavidson€ChanceryÐ  ð  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àNo.€96„3369„IIÐ †Ö  МWERNER›€ENTERPRISES,à 8 àà  à)à è àà @ àà ˜ àà ð àà H! àà  # àÐ l¼ Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ìà Ø àDefendant/Appellant.à 8 àà  à)Ð 8ˆ ÐÌÌà@U U êàAPPEALED€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€DAVIDSON€COUNTYˆÌà@#êàAT€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEˆÌÌà@N N êàTHE€HONORABLE€CAROL€L.€œMcCOY›,€CHANCELLORˆÌÌÌÌDOUGLAS€E.€JONESÌSuite€701Ì501€Union€StreetÌNashville,€Tennessee€37219Ìà Ø àAttorney€for€Plaintiff/AppelleeÌÌJAMES€D.€KAY,€JR.ÌœBRIDGETT›€A.€œWOHLPART›ÌSuite€œ340M›,€Washington€Square€TwoÌ222€Second€Avenue€NorthÌNashville,€Tennessee€37201ÌÌÌÌÌÌà@66êàMODIFIED€IN€PART;€REVERSED€IN€PART;ˆÌà@¿¿(êàAND€REMANDEDˆÌÌÌÌÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€M.S.ÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌKOCH,€J.ÌCAIN,€J.ÌÐ  B8’399 ÐÓÓò òÔ€„,q„XXÿÓÔòòà@tt(êàO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÔ€XÿÓX„„,qԈР° ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àIn€this€negligence€case,€the€trial€court€granted€the€plaintiff€damages€forÏlost€profits.€€Because€we€think€the€method€used€for€calculating€those€damages€wasÏflawed,€we€modify€the€award.ÌÌà@¦¦(êàò òI.€€The€Factsó óˆÐ tÄ  Мà Ø à›à 0 àThe€facts€of€this€case€are€straightforward€and€undisputed.€€At€6:30€in€theÏmorning€on€January€3,€1995,€the€driver€of€a€45€foot€semi„tractor€trailer€truck€ownedÏand€operated€by€defendant€œWerner›€Enterprises€attempted€to€turn€into€the€drivewayÏof€plaintiff€Forklift€Enterprises.€€His€turn€was€wide,€and€he€accidentally€knocked€downÏan€electrical€service€pole€on€Elm€Hill€Pike.€€The€impact€destroyed€a€transformer€thatÏsupplied€power€to€the€plaintiff€company.€€The€fire€department€subsequently€sealed€offÏElm€Hill€Pike,€and€ordered€that€Forkliftððs€building€be€vacated,€because€of€potentialÏdanger€from€dangling€electrical€lines.€€ÌÌœà Ø à›à 0 àPower€was€not€restored€until€11:00€A.M.€the€following€day.€€During€theÏperiod€the€power€was€off,€the€plaintiff€was€unable€to€perform€any€of€its€normalÏbusiness€of€selling,€renting€and€repairing€forklifts€and€forklift€parts.€€The€only€otherÏfacility€operated€by€the€plaintiff€at€that€time€was€in€Louisville,€Kentucky.€€That€facilityÏalso€was€shut€down€for€the€same€period,€because€with€the€loss€of€electricity,€theÏcomputer€connection€between€the€two€facilities€was€severed.ÌÌà Ø àœà 0 àForklift›€Systems€filed€suit€for€negligence€on€October€28,€1996.€€The€caseÏwent€to€trial€on€March€5,€1998.€€œWerner›€agreed€that€it€was€liable€for€damages,€and€theÏparties€stipulated€to€damages€of€$285€for€electrical€repairs,€and€$8,065€in€wages€thatÏForklift€had€to€pay€to€its€employees€during€the€day€and€a€half€during€which€they€wereÏprevented€from€doing€productive€work.€€The€plaintiff€also€claimed€damages€for€lostÏprofits€and€opportunities.€€€ÌÐ Ô9$5: Мà Ø à›à 0 àThe€trial€court€relied€upon€a€statement€of€earnings€and€retained€earningsÏsubmitted€by€Forklift€Systems€(the€sole€exhibit€in€this€case)€as€the€basis€for€thatÏportion€of€its€award.€€The€court€found€that€the€plaintiff€was€entitled€to€$10,342€for€lostÏprofits€and€lost€opportunities.€€Adding€these€sums€to€the€$285€and€$8,065€stipulatedÏto€by€the€parties,€the€Court€entered€a€judgment€against€œWerner›€Enterprises€totalingÏ$18,692.€€This€appeal€followed.ÌÌà@%êàò òII.€€Lost€Profits€ó óˆÐ Ð  МÌà Ø à›à 0 àLost€profits€may€be€a€legitimate€element€of€damages€in€cases€basedÏeither€upon€contract€or€upon€tort.€€However,€they€are€only€recoverable€when€theÏamount€of€damages€can€be€proven€with€reasonable€certainty,€and€are€not€remote€orÏspeculative.€€òòœMorristown›€Lincoln„Mercury€v.€Roy€N.€œLotspeich›€Publishing€Co.,óó€298Ð 0€ ÐS.W.2d€788€(œTenn.€›App.€œ1956)ñÙñ;ñÙññÚñ,ñÚñòò›€œMcClain›€v.€œKimbrough›€Construction€Co.óó,€806€S.W.2dÐ ` Ð194,€200€(œTenn.€›App.€1990).€ÌÌà Ø àœà 0 àWhen›€the€plaintiff€is€an€established€business€with€a€consistent€earningsÏhistory,€the€profit€record€from€the€most€recent€years€can€usually€supply€the€requisiteÏdegree€of€certainty.€€The€general€rule€is€that€the€award€must€be€based€upon€net€profit.€ÏòòAmerican€œBldgs›.€Co.€v.€œDBH›€Attachments,€Inc.óó,€676€S.W.2d€558€(œTenn.€›App.€œ1984)òòñÚñ›ñÚñ;›€Ð P( #& ÐCecil€œCorley›€Motor€Co.€v.€General€Motorsóó,€380€œF.Supp›€819€(D.C.€œTennñÚñ›ñÚññØñ.ñØñ›€1974).€Ð 0*€%( ÐHowever,€in€this€case€the€trial€court€based€its€calculation€upon€Forkliftððs€gross€profit.€ÏGross€profit,€stated€in€its€most€basic€form,€is€the€difference€between€the€revenueÏderived€from€the€sale€of€goods€and€the€cost€to€the€seller€of€those€goods.€€€ÌœÌà Ø à›à 0 àThe€trial€courtððs€approach€excludes€from€the€profit€equation€the€cost€ofÏdoing€business€(overhead).€€Thus,€over€$2€million€of€ð ðselling,€general€andÏadministrative€expensesðð€which€the€defendant€incurred€each€year,€and€which€had€aÏprofound€negative€impact€upon€its€net€profit,€became€a€nullity€under€the€trial€courtððsÏapproach.€€Ð ;`6: ЀÌà Ø àœà 0 àThe›€argument€can€be€made€that€insofar€as€Forkliftððs€overhead€expensesÏare€fixed,€then€the€gross€profit€from€each€additional€sale€made€or€missed€will€translateÏinto€an€exactly€equivalent€increase€or€decrease€in€net€profit.€€But€there€is€no€proof€inÏthe€record€as€to€which€of€its€overhead€expenses€are€fixed€(other€than€salaries)€andÏwhich€expenses€vary€with€the€volume€of€business.€€We€therefore€see€no€reason€toÏdeviate€from€the€rule€that€requires€us€to€take€overhead€into€account€in€calculating€lostÏprofits.€€ÌÌœà Ø à›à 0 àWe€do€believe,€however,€that€there€is€sufficient€reason€to€exclude€fromÏthe€equation€expenses€that€are€œcompletely€unrelated›€to€Forkliftððs€daily€operations,Ïsuch€as€a€$125,000€payment€for€a€one„time€litigation€settlement€which€Forklift€enteredÏinto€in€1995.€€We€therefore€base€our€revised€award€upon€Forkliftððs€operating€income,Ïa€figure€calculated€by€subtracting€the€companyððs€overhead€from€its€gross€profit,€beforeÏfactoring€in€the€above„mentioned€settlement.€€€ÌÌà Ø àœà 0 àApplying›€the€chancellorððs€methodology€to€operating€income,€we€arriveÏat€the€following€result:€The€average€annual€operating€income€for€1994€and€1995€wasÏ$169,540.€€When€we€divide€this€by€264€working€days€per€year,€we€get€$642.20€perÏbusiness€day.€€Multiplying€this€by€the€1.5€days€that€Forkliftððs€operation€was€affectedÏresults€in€lost€profits€of€$963.30.€€To€this€figure€œwe›€add€the€œstipulated€damages€ofÏ$285›€œfor›€the€electrical€repairs€and€œ$8,065›€for€employee€wages,€for€a€total€judgmentÏof€$9,313.30.€€ÌÌñÚñœñÚñà@ÃÃ"êàò òIII.€€Lost€Opportunitiesó óˆÐ °1-0 МÌà Ø à›à 0 àIn€addition€to€the€award€for€lost€profits,€the€trial€court€also€awarded€theÏplaintiff€$4,478€for€lost€opportunities.€€We€œreverse›€this€part€of€the€judgment,€becauseÏalthough€the€trial€court€made€a€good„faith€attempt€to€quantify€the€purported€loss,€weÏbelieve€the€basis€for€it€to€be€too€speculative.Ð ;`6: Їà Ø àœà 0 àForkliftððs›€president€testified€that€a€major€customer€was€unable€to€buy€aÏpart€from€the€company€during€the€time€in€question,€and€subsequently€ceased€doingÏbusiness€with€the€plaintiff.€€However,€he€was€unable€to€state€categorically€that€the€lossÏof€that€account€was€due€to€the€shutdown.€€The€trial€court€did€not€cite€this€testimony€inÏits€judgment,€and€in€fact€it€based€the€award€upon€different€considerations.€€€€€ÌÌœà Ø à›à 0 àForkliftððs€sales€revenues€increased€between€1994€and€1995€by€over€$1.1Ïmillion.€€The€court€concluded€that€while€its€doors€were€closed,€the€company€lost€theÏopportunity€to€increase€its€sales€by€an€amount€equal€to€the€average€daily€increaseÏbetween€1994€and€1995,€which€it€calculated€to€be€the€above„mentioned€$4,478.€ÏAside€from€the€dubious€nature€of€this€proposition,€we€must€note€that€the€cost€of€goodsÏsold€increased€by€almost€$1.2€million€in€1995,€resulting€in€an€actual€decline€in€ForkliftððsÏoperating€income€by€about€one„third€(almost€$60,000)€despite€the€increase€in€sales.€ÏWe€thus€find€there€to€be€no€rational€basis€for€a€lost€opportunities€damage€award.€€ÌÌà@oo-êàò òIV.ó óˆÐ Ð  Ðà Ø àœÌà Ø àà 0 àThe›€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€reduced€to€$9,313.30.€€Remand€thisÏcause€to€the€Chancery€Court€of€Davidson€County€for€further€proceedings€consistentÏwith€this€opinion.€€Tax€the€costs€on€appeal€to€the€appellee.€€à ˜ àÐ P( #& ÐÌœÓÓÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à_________________________________›¼à Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àœà  àBEN›€H.€CANTRELL,€œà ð àà H! àà  # àÐ ð-@), Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€M.S.›ÌÌœñÜñÌ›ÌñÜññÜñÌñÜñCONCUR:›ÌœñÝñÌ›ÌñÝñ›ÌœñßñÌñßñ›Ì_____________________________ÌœWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JUDGE›ÌœñàñÌñàñ›ÌÌœñÞñÌñÞññßñ›ñßññÞñÌñÞñ_____________________________›ÌœWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGE›ÌÐ  ;`6: ÐÑ  ÑÔ€¼—Ò¼XX UÔò òà@êê.êàœñâñIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@™™(êàAT€NASHVILLEñâñó óñâñÔ€X UX¼¼—ÒÔˆÐ Æ МÌÌÌÌFORKLIFT€SYSTEMS,€INC.,à 8 àà  à)Ð œ ì Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ìà Ø àPlaintiff/Appellee,à à àà 8 àà  à)à è àAppeal€No.Ð | Ì Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è à01„A„01„9804„CH„00220Ð l ¼  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àÐ \¬  ÐV.S.à Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àDavidson€ChanceryÐ Lœ  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àNo.€96„3369„IIÐ <Œ  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àÐ ,|  ÐWERNER€ENTERPRISES,à 8 àà  à)à è àModified€in€Part;€Reversedà  # àÐ l  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àin€Part;€and€RemandedÐ  \ Ðà Ø àDefendant/Appellant.à 8 àà  à)›Ð üL ÐÌÔ€¼—Ò¼XX UÔò òòòà@uu'êàJ€U€D€G€M€E€N€Tóóó óˆÐ Ü, ÐÌÓÓÔ€X UX¼¼—ÒÔà Ø àà 0 àThis€cause€came€on€to€be€heard€upon€the€record€on€appeal€from€theÐ X МChancery€Court›€of€œDavidson€County,›€briefs€and€argument€of€counsel;€uponÏconsideration€whereof,€this€Court€is€of€the€opinion€that€œthe€award€for€lost€profits€shouldÏbe€reduced€and€the€award€for€lost€opportunities€should€be€reversed.›Ìà Ø àà 0 àIn€accordance€with€the€opinion€of€the€Court€filed€herein,€it€is,€therefore,Ïordered€and€decreed€by€this€Court€that€the€decree€œis€modified€in€part;€reversed€in€part;Ïand›€remanded€to€the€œChancery€Court›€of€œDavidson€County›€for€œany€further€proceedingsÏnecessary›€and€for€the€collection€of€the€costs€accrued€below.Ìà Ø àà 0 àCosts€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€against€œForklift€Systems,€Inc.,›€for€whichÏexecution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÓÓÌÌÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àœ______________________________________Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€PRESIDING€JUDGE,€M.S.ÌÌÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 à______________________________________Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGE›ÌÌÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àœ______________________________________Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGEÌñâñ›