period of time employment would have been obtained but for the injury, disability and income loss benefits should be payable. The 'problem is in separating the speculative from the probable. Id. at 53-54 (emphasis added). We agree that McKenzie can recover only income she would have earned and not what she merely could have earned. We also agree that the appropriate way to distinguish what she would have earned from what she could have earned is to determine whether the chances of her working full time after the accident were probable or merely speculative. The question of whether a claimant would, as opposed to could, have obtained full-time employment is generally one for the trier of fact. See Demning v. Grain Dealers Mutual Insurance, 411 N.W.2d 571, 573 (Minn.Ct.App.1987) (<HOLDING>). We believe this question should be taken from
holding that whether a consent to a search was in fact voluntary or was the product of duress or coercion express or implied is a question of fact to be determined from the totality of all the circumstances holding that estoppel was a question of fact holding the question of whether insurance companys requests were reasonable under policy language was a fact question holding that whether or not claimant would have returned to work at all was a question of fact holding it is a question of fact