O'Gee v. Dobbs Houses, Inc.
570 F.2d 1084 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An appellate court has the power to review a trial court's refusal to set aside a verdict as excessive and may order a new trial or remittitur if the award is so high that it constitutes a denial of justice, amounting to an abuse of discretion by the trial court.
Facts:
- Dobbs Houses, Inc. contracted with United Airlines to load food onto its flights.
- On April 23, 1972, a Dobbs employee loaded a heavy, wheeled buffet unit onto a United plane but failed to properly engage the locking latches.
- Shortly after takeoff, the unsecured buffet slid two feet out of its recessed position, blocking an emergency exit.
- Kathleen O’Gee, a United flight attendant, saw the obstruction and attempted to push the 500-800 pound unit back into place.
- While making several attempts to move the buffet, O'Gee felt a pull and then a sharp pain in her back.
- The injury was ultimately diagnosed as a herniated disk, for which O'Gee underwent a laminectomy surgery in May 1973.
- After a fourteen-month period of recovery and therapy, O’Gee returned to work full-time at United in September 1973.
- Following her return, O'Gee lost no further time from work as a result of the injury and received commendations for perfect attendance.
Procedural Posture:
- Kathleen O’Gee filed a negligence lawsuit against Dobbs Houses, Inc. in federal district court (the court of first instance).
- Dobbs impleaded United Airlines as a third-party defendant, alleging United's equipment was at fault.
- United filed a counterclaim against Dobbs, seeking indemnification for legal costs under their service contract.
- Following a trial, a jury returned a verdict for O'Gee, finding Dobbs 100% liable and awarding $170,000 in damages.
- The trial court denied a motion by Dobbs to set aside the verdict as excessive.
- The trial court also dismissed United's counterclaim for indemnification.
- Dobbs appealed the judgment against it, and United cross-appealed the dismissal of its counterclaim to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a jury's damage award of $170,000 for a back injury that required surgery constitute an abuse of discretion requiring reversal or remittitur, where the plaintiff's actual wage loss was minimal and she made a full return to her job with no future wage loss?
Opinions:
Majority - Lumbard, Circuit Judge
Yes, the damage award is so excessive that it would be a denial of justice to permit it to stand. The court found the $170,000 verdict to be an abuse of discretion because the plaintiff's actual lost wages were only $10,000, and there was no evidence to support any finding of future wage loss. O'Gee returned to her duties as a flight attendant, performed them satisfactorily, and even earned commendations for perfect records, indicating that her physical problems did not prevent her from working. Given the limited economic damages and her successful return to work, the amount awarded for pain and suffering was disproportionately high. The court also held that a broad indemnity clause in the contract between United and Dobbs required Dobbs to reimburse United for its legal expenses, as the claim arose from Dobbs' catering services, regardless of United's procedural posture as a third-party defendant.
Dissenting - Feinberg, Circuit Judge
No, the jury's damage award was not an abuse of discretion and should be affirmed. The majority understated the severity and permanence of the plaintiff's injuries. The jury was entitled to find that O'Gee, a 23-year-old active woman, suffered a life-altering injury requiring major surgery, resulting in daily pain, permanent disability, and the loss of enjoyment of life activities like skiing and sailing. With a life expectancy of nearly 50 years, her future pain and suffering were substantial. The award was not so high as to 'shock the judicial conscience,' especially since the trial judge, who observed the evidence firsthand, stated he would have sustained a verdict of up to $200,000.
Analysis:
This case demonstrates the principle of remittitur, where an appellate court can reduce a jury's damage award it deems excessive. It establishes that while deference is given to the jury and trial judge, there is an 'upper limit' to damages that appellate courts will enforce as a matter of law to prevent a 'denial of justice.' The decision highlights the tension between respecting a jury's valuation of pain and suffering and an appellate court's assessment of what is reasonable based on tangible evidence like lost wages and post-injury work performance. Furthermore, it affirms that the substance of an indemnity agreement will be enforced based on the origin of the claim, not the procedural maneuvering of the parties in a lawsuit.
Unlock the full brief for O'Gee v. Dobbs Houses, Inc.