$3.3 MILLION JURY AWARD DIDN’T JUSTIFY PARSIMONIOUSNESS CLAIM.
BRUCE FALCONER, Plaintiff, v. PENN MARITIME, INC., Defendant.
Civil No. 05-42-B-W
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE
421 F. Supp. 2d 190; 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10073
March 10, 2006, Decided
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff employee, a seaman, filed a motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 for a new trial on liability and a new trial on damages in his Jones Act and unseaworthiness action against defendant employer, alleging that the court erred in certain evidentiary and other rulings and that the jury was too parsimonious in awarding $ 100,000 in pain and suffering damages out of a total award of $ 3.3 million.
OVERVIEW: The employee fell into an open hatch, sustaining injuries that rendered him paralyzed below his mid-chest. The jury returned a verdict for the employee, assessing a total damage award of over $ 5 million, reduced by 35 percent due to the employee's own negligence, for a final verdict of $ 3.3 million, including $ 100,000 for past and future pain and suffering. In denying the employee's motion for a new trial as to damages, the court held that viewed in isolation the pain and suffering award stood at the edge of reasonableness. The court, however, held that his argument that the jury was unduly miserly was undercut by his concession that, in other respects, it was overly generous. The court also held that the verdict did not include certain amounts the employer had advanced to the employee prior to trial, including a new, wheelchair-accessible, mortgage-free home, a wheelchair-accessible van, and home-exercise equipment, which mitigated some pain and suffering that would have otherwise occurred. In denying the employee's motion for a new trial as to liability, the court held that none of the evidentiary errors allegedly committed by the court presented grounds for a new trial.
OUTCOME: The court denied the employee's motion.
