PLAINTIFF EMPLOYEE’S EXPERT OPINION RE HIS FUTURE SALARY WAS SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD AND NOTHING PREVENTED THE DEFENDANT EMPLOYER FROM PRESENTING PROOF OF FACTORS THAT THE JURY COULD HAVE CONSIDERED IN REDUCING AN AWARD OF LOST FUTURE INCOME.
RICK E. MILLER, Respondent-Cross-Appellant, v. PACIFIC TRAWLERS, INC., an Oregon corporation, Appellant-Cross Respondent, and F/V CAPE FOULWEATHER, a vessel, Defendant.
COURT OF APPEALS OF OREGON
204 Ore. App. 585; 131 P.3d 821; 2006 Ore. App. LEXIS 324
March 15, 2006, Filed
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendant former employer appealed a decision of the Circuit Court, Multnomah County (Oregon), which found in favor of plaintiff employee in his action under the federal Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.S. app. § 688(a), alleging negligence regarding an accident in which the employee suffered serious permanent injury to his legs. The employee cross-appealed the trial court's reduction of the jury's award.
OVERVIEW: The employee was captain of the employer's fishing vessel. The employee was injured when a forklift driver caused a steel door to fall on the employee's legs, causing the employee to undergo several surgeries and face possible future amputation. The trial court denied the employer's motion for a change of venue, and the state Supreme Court denied a writ of mandamus on the issue. The court held that mandamus was the proper remedy and declined to consider the issue on appeal. The court also held that the employee's expert's opinion regarding the employee's future annual salary was supported by the record. Nothing prevented the employer from presenting proof of factors that the jury could have considered in reducing an award of lost future income. Moreover, the employer requested, and the trial court gave, an instruction that advised the jury to award the employee only net future income, and the employee was not required to produce expert testimony of the present value of his lost future income. Also, pursuant to 29 U.S.C.S. § 653(b)(4), the trial court did not err when it reduced the employee's award by four percent, the amount that the jury found the employee was negligent.
OUTCOME: The court affirmed on appeal and on cross-appeal.
