Earl v. Bouchard Transportation Co.
735 F. Supp. 1167, 1990 WL 50935, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6207 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court may grant a remittitur to reduce a jury's award for lost future earnings if the award is excessive, meaning it is based on a projected work-life expectancy that is not reasonably supported by the evidence presented at trial. While a plaintiff is entitled to damages for the loss of earning capacity, the amount must be based on evidence, not speculation.
Facts:
- James Earl worked as a tugboat deck hand for his employer, Bouchard Transportation Co.
- On August 29, 1984, Earl injured his right elbow in a work accident aboard the tugboat Marion C. Bouchard.
- In a second accident on December 13, 1984, Earl injured his ankle and re-injured his elbow.
- Prior to the accidents, Earl's captain and a fellow crew member testified that Earl frequently spoke of his intention to retire when he turned 62.
- Earl testified that his own pre-accident intention was to retire at age 65.
- As a result of his injuries, Earl was forced to retire on May 16, 1985, approximately one month before his 62nd birthday.
Procedural Posture:
- James Earl filed a lawsuit against his employer, Bouchard Transportation Co., in federal district court under the Jones Act and general maritime law.
- Following a three-day trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Earl, awarding him total damages of $855,000.
- The jury's total award included $425,000 specifically for lost future earnings.
- Bouchard Transportation Co. filed a post-trial motion requesting a new trial or, in the alternative, a remittitur to reduce the amount of the jury's damage award as excessive.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a jury's award for lost future earnings excessive and subject to remittitur when it is based on a projected work-life expectancy that is not supported by the evidence presented at trial?
Opinions:
Majority - Weinstein, District Judge
Yes, a jury's award for lost future earnings is excessive and subject to remittitur when it is based on a work-life expectancy unsupported by the evidence. The jury's $425,000 award for lost earnings could only be justified if the record supported a finding that Earl intended to work past the age of 70, which it does not. A plaintiff is entitled to compensation for the depletion of his 'work-capital' or earning capacity, which is measured by what he could have earned. However, this calculation must be based on reasonable evidence, not speculation. Even Earl's own testimony only supported a retirement age of 65. The court has an obligation to equalize a 'lopsidedly' excessive verdict. Therefore, the award must be reduced to an amount that reflects a retirement age of 65, which is the most favorable projection for the plaintiff that the evidence can support.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the trial court's supervisory power over jury verdicts, specifically through the mechanism of remittitur, to ensure damage awards are grounded in evidence rather than speculation. The court's analysis provides a detailed explanation of 'loss of earning capacity' (or 'work-capital') as a distinct and compensable injury, separate from actual lost wages. This decision establishes that while juries have latitude in calculating such damages, their findings regarding work-life expectancy must be reasonably supported by particularized evidence, and courts will intervene to correct verdicts that go far beyond what the record can justify.
