1.    A mobile home fire, prosecuted by the parents of two minor children who received fatal injuries.  The claimants were required to prove that the mobile home was defective and/or shipped in interstate commerce absent compliance with applicable law.  In addition, proof was required as to the value of the destroyed earning capacity of the two minor children.

2.    A Federal tort claim action against the U.S. Forestry Service, wherein the plaintiff received paralyzing injuries as a result of an alleged hidden defect upon the land.  In addition to liability, the plaintiff was required to prove the extent to which the injury produced diminished earning capacity and the dollar value of  claimed damages for lost wages, diminished earning capacity, pain and suffering, additional life care and medical expenses, and the likelihood of future medical complications.

3.    A tort claim by  horse owners to an experimental and specially bred crop of 16 thoroughbred yearlings damaged in a series of attacks by guard dogs that escaped from a commercial business.  In addition to proving each attack was by the guard dogs and not wild animals or other dogs, plaintiff  was required to prove the dollar value of the loss for value of each horse, damage to the overall breeding experiment, diminution of each mare’s value and loss to the stallions’ product records.

4.    A lender liability claim wherein a bank customer claimed that the bank violated both fiduciary duties and the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.  In addition to proving the bank’s conduct was a violation of law, the plaintiff was required to prove the value of the losses of a thoroughbred breeding operation, measured by the business interruption principal.

5.    A contract action wherein the plaintiff alleged and proved an oral agreement for the purchase and sale of a thoroughbred mare in foal to a leading sire, and a yearling colt by the same stallion.  In addition to proving the enforceability of the oral contract, the plaintiff was required to prove the value of the mare and her progeny.

6.    A medical malpractice suit in which the plaintiff claimed that permanent bilateral vision loss was occasioned by the acts or omissions of the operating anesthesiologist.  In addition to proving liability, the plaintiff was required to prove the extent and permanency of the injuries and the dollar value of the damages for diminished earning capacity, pain and  mental anguish, as well as future medical and life care costs.