The law does not permit a recovery of damages that are merely speculative or conjectural.25 As a general rule, the law refuses to allow damages relating to future consequences of an injury unless the evidence establishes with reasonable probability the nature and extent of those consequences. There must be some reasonable basis upon which a jury may estimate with a fair degree of certainty the probable loss that the plaintiff will sustain in order to enable it to make an intelligent determination of the extent of the loss.26 On the other hand, if damage is sufficiently proved, the fact that there is some uncertainty as to the amount of the plaintiff’s damages or that it is difficult to measure the extent of damages will not preclude a jury from being allowed to determine its value.27
Lost profits cannot be demonstrated by conjecture, uncertain estimates or mere conclusions, but must be substantiated from tangible facts from which the actual damages may be logically shown or inferred.28 Loss of expected profits from a new business is too speculative, uncertain and remote to be considered when there is no history of prior profits.29
A disease or other deterioration of health occurring after an injury is not compensable unless it is shown to be the natural and probable consequence of the negligent act.30
25. Coleman v. Garrison, 349 A.2d 8, 12 (Del. 1975), overruled on other grounds by Garrison v. Medical Center of Delaware, Inc., 581 A.2d 288 (Del. 1989); Drozdov v. Webster, 345 A.2d 895, 897 (Del. 1975); Laskowski v. Wallis, 205 A.2d 825, 826 (Del. 1964); Henne v. Balick, 146 A.2d 394, 396 (Del. 1958); American Gen. Corp. v. Continental Airlines Corp., 622 A.2d 1, 12 (Del. Ch. 1992), aff’d mem., 620 A.2d 856 (Del. 1993); Scotton v. Wright, 121 A. 180, 185 (Del. Super. 1923); Unruh v. Taylor, 43 A. 515, 517 (Del. Super. 1899); Hysore v. Quigley, 32 A. 960, 962 (Del. Super. 1892); Magarity v. Wilmington, 10 Del. 530, 5 Houst. 530, 539 (Del. Super. 1879).
26. Moody v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 549 A.2d 291, 293 (Del. 1988); Drozdov v. Webster, 345 A.2d 895, 897 (Del. 1975); Laskowski v. Wallis, 205 A.2d 825, 826 (Del. 1964); Henne v. Balick, 146 A.2d 394, 396 (Del. 1958).
27. Moody v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 549 A.2d 291, 293 (Del. 1988); Henne v. Balick, 146 A.2d 394, 396 (Del. 1958).
28. Wise v. Western Union Tel. Co., 181 A. 302, 305 (Del. Super. 1935); Callahan v. Rafail, C.A. No. 99C-02-024, slip op. at 2-3, Graves, J. (Del. Super. Mar.16, 2001).
29. Moody v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 549 A.2d 291, 295 (Del. 1988) (Horsey, J., dissenting); Re v. Gannett Co., 480 A.2d 662, 668 (Del. Super. 1984), aff’d, 496 A.2d 553 (Del. 1985).
30. Gill v. Celotex Corp., 565 A.2d 21, 23 (Del. Super. 1989); Baldwin v. People’s R. Co., 76 A. 1088, 1093 (Del. Super. 1908), aff’d, 72 A. 979 (Del. 1909).
© 2010 David L. Finger