Snow v. Villacci

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Torts

TortsDamagesLost earning opportunitytortsdamageslost earning opportunityproximate causespeculation

Facts

Villacci negligently started Snow's car while it was in gear and pinned Snow between the car and a workbench, causing leg injuries that kept Snow out of work for about fourteen weeks. At the time, Snow was in month twenty of Merrill Lynch's twenty-five-month financial consultant training program, with successful completion possible but not assured. Snow claimed that his injury-related absence set him back in the program, prevented him from meeting its goals, and resulted in his not being invited to become a financial consultant. Although Merrill Lynch retained him as an investment associate, Snow alleged that he lost the opportunity to earn substantially higher income as a financial consultant.

Issue

May a plaintiff in a tort action recover damages for a lost earning opportunity, as distinct from lost wages or lost earning capacity, when the plaintiff no longer suffers an ongoing impairment but claims that the defendant's negligence caused the loss of a specific opportunity for higher earnings? More specifically, was summary judgment properly denied because such damages are legally cognizable and supported by material facts here?

Rule

Lost earning opportunity damages are recoverable in Maine when the claimant proves by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) the opportunity was real and not merely a hoped-for prospect; (2) the opportunity was available specifically to the plaintiff, not just to the public in general; (3) the plaintiff was positioned to take advantage of the opportunity; (4) the income from the opportunity was measurable and demonstrable; and (5) the defendant's negligence was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's inability to pursue the opportunity. Such claims are barred only when the proof is speculative, amounting to mere guesswork or conjecture.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Portland, Maine, Dana Reeve was injured when Owen Pike negligently struck her bicycle. Dana missed six weeks of a coding-certification program run by Pine Harbor Tech Institute. She sues for lost earning opportunity, offering only her testimony that she "probably would have landed a six-figure software job someday" if she had stayed on track, but no evidence of any actual placement pipeline, individualized eligibility, or expected compensation.

Under the governing rule, is Dana likely to recover lost earning opportunity damages?

Explanation. A plaintiff may recover for lost earning opportunity only if the opportunity was real, available specifically to the plaintiff, the plaintiff was positioned to take advantage of it, the income was measurable and demonstrable, and the defendant's negligence proximately caused the inability to pursue it. Here, Dana offers only her own belief that she would someday obtain a lucrative job, without evidence of a concrete opportunity or measurable income. That is the sort of speculation, guesswork, or conjecture the court said cannot support recovery.