California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI) (2017)

3903H. Damage to Annual Crop (Economic Damage)

Download PDF
3903H.Damage to Annual Crop (Economic Damage)
[Insert number, e.g., “8.”]The harm to [name of plaintiff]’s crop.
[Damages for the destruction of an entire annual crop are determined
as follows:
1. Determine the expected market value of the crop before the
harm occurred; and
2. Subtract from this amount the estimated costs of producing and
marketing the crop, excluding costs that have already been paid
by [name of plaintiff].]
[Damages for the destruction of part of an annual crop are determined
as follows:
1. Determine the expected market value of the crop before the
harm occurred;
2. Subtract from this amount the estimated costs of producing and
marketing the crop. This is the expected net profit
3. Next, subtract the actual cost of producing and marketing the
surviving crop from the actual receipts. This is actual net profit
4. Subtract number 3 from number 2. This amount is [name of
plaintiff]’s damages for this loss.]
New September 2003
Directions for Use
Select one of the bracketed options depending on whether the plaintiff is seeking
damages for the destruction of all or part of a crop.
Sources and Authority
• “They rely on the distinction drawn between the wrongful destruction of
perennial crops, such as volunteer grass for grazing purposes, and annually
planted crops. Thus, in the former case the proper measure of damages is the
difference in the rental value of the property with and without the crops, while
in the latter case the proper measure of damages is the market value of the
estimated product at the time of destruction, less the cost of producing and
marketing the same.” (Wolfsen v. Hathaway (1948) 32 Cal.2d 632, 644 [198
P.2d 1], internal citations omitted, overruled on other grounds in Flores v.
Arroyo (1961) 56 Cal.2d 492 [15 Cal.Rptr. 87, 364 P.2d 263].)
• “We concede that the proper method is to show what the crop would have been
and to deduct the probable cost of producing and selling such crop with the
difference between market value and costs constituting the amount of damages.
728
0030
We have so held in [cited cases]. The rule is clearly set forth also in other
California cases and authorities.” (Spinelli v. Tallcott (1969) 272 Cal.App.2d
589, 592 [77 Cal.Rptr. 481], internal citations omitted.)
• “The proper measure of damages is the market value of the estimated product at
the time of destruction, less the cost of producing and marketing the same.”
(Parks v. Atwood Crop Dusters, Inc. (1953) 118 Cal.App.2d 368, 373 [257 P.2d
653], internal citation omitted.)
• “The correct rule for the measurement of damages for the partial destruction of
a growing crop was discussed in Rystrom v. Sutter Butte Canal Co. (1925) 72
Cal.App. 518, 522–523 [249 P. 53]. In that case a growing crop of rice had
been damaged. The court pointed out that estimated costs of production must
firs be deducted from expected gross receipts to arrive at the expected net
profit Next, the court said, actual cost of production must be deducted from
actual receipts to arrive at actual net profit Finally, deducting actual net profi
from expected net profi fixe the actual damage.” (Solis v. County of Contra
Costa (1967) 251 Cal.App.2d 844, 847–848 [60 Cal.Rptr. 99].)
Secondary Sources
6 Witkin, Summary of California Law (10th ed. 2005) Torts, § 1735
California Real Property Remedies Practice (Cont.Ed.Bar) Damages for Injury to
Real Property, § 11.14
4 Levy et al., California Torts, Ch. 52, Medical Expenses and Economic Loss,
§ 52.34[1] (Matthew Bender)
15 California Forms of Pleading and Practice, Ch. 177, Damages (Matthew
Bender)
6 California Points and Authorities, Ch. 64, Damages: Tort (Matthew Bender)
1 California Civil Practice: Torts, § 5:19 (Thomson Reuters)
DAMAGES CACI No. 3903H
729
0031