Robert Kushner, M.D., filed this legal malpractice action ¿gainst his former attorney, Paul McLarty, and the law partnership of Mc-Larty and Aiken alleging negligence in the prеparation of an employment contract. In
Kushner v. McLarty,
1. Appellants claim the trial court erred by denying their motions for directed verdict, judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial on the ground thаt there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict for damages. The employment contract in question was executed upon the sale of Smyrna Hоspital, where appellee was a radiologist as well as part-owner. The contract between appellee and the new purchasers ran for an initial term of three years. It was appellee’s understanding that the employment contract would prohibit the hospital’s new owners from terminating his services or refusing to renew his contract unless: (1) he was given 120-days’ notice; (2) a determination was made by the medical-dental staff that his services as a radiologist were inadequate; and (3) he was afforded a hearing. After the initial contract period expired, appellee was notified that his contract would not be renеwed and he sued the hospital for breach of contract. In
Kushner v. Southern Adventist Health &c. Systems,
Appellants argue that the evidence of damages in this action was based on expected profits and was too speculative and uncertain to support the jury’s verdict. We disagree. On appeal, we must сonstrue the evidence most strongly in support of the jury’s verdict and the judgment thereon,
White v. Olderman Realty &c. Co.,
Appellee’s cоntract with the hospital provided that in consideration for the performance of radiological services he would be paid a percentage of the hospital’s gross billings for radiological services. The parties stipulated the amount of the hospital’s billings for radiological services from the date of appellee’s termination to the date of trial. Appellee prеsented evidence of his income during that period as evidence of mitigation of damages. “Though there should not be reliance upon speculation аnd conjecture and the proof should be made with all possible specifiсity, . . . reasonable certainty is all that is required.”
Crankshaw v. Stanley Homes, Inc.,
2. Appellants further contend the trial court erred by denying their motions for directed verdict, judgment notwithstanding thе verdict, and for a new trial because there was no evidence that appellee could have obtained the “lifetime contract” he thought he hаd with the hospital. Conflicting evidence was presented by appellee and the hospital’s agent as to the acceptability of the contract clause in question. We find that the evidence, though conflicting, was sufficient to suppоrt the jury’s verdict under the “any evidence” standard. “If there is any evidence to supрort the jury’s verdict and the trial court’s judgment, then all conflicts in the evidence will be rеsolved to favor the verdict.”
Triple A Delivery Co. v. Flexi-Van Leasing,
Judgment affirmed.