BECAUSE NO REASONABLE JURY COULD HAVE FOUND THAT THE AUTHORITY UNREASONABLY WITHHELD MAINTENANCE AND CURE AND THE JURY'S VERDICT WAS SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE, INTER ALIA, THE DISTRICT COURT'S JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE RIVER AND BAY AUTHORITY ON THE WORKER
JAN KOPACZ; CATHY KOPACZ v. DELAWARE RIVER AND BAY AUTHORITY; CRAIG SWETT, JAN KOPACZ v. DELAWARE RIVER AND BAY AUTHORITY, Jan D. Kopacz and Cathy Kopacz, Appellants.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 21854
September 12, 2007, Opinion Filed
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellant worker appealed from the order of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware which granted partial summary judgment in favor of appellee river and bay authority on the worker's claims seeking damages for an injury that he alleged occurred when he was struck by a car while working aboard an authority ferry.
OVERVIEW: The worker argued that the district court erred, inter alia, in granting the authority's motion for judgment as a matter of law as to compensatory damages, and denying attorney's fees and costs and prejudgment interest. The record showed that the authority did not believe that the car accident that formed the basis for the worker's claim occurred. There were no witnesses to the alleged accident besides the worker. The jury in fact found that the worker had not been struck and injured by the car. Thus, no reasonable jury could have found that the authority unreasonably withheld maintenance and cure and the jury's verdict was supported by the evidence. In light of the appellate court's finding that the authority did not act unreasonably in denying maintenance and cure, it affirmed the denial of attorneys' fees and costs. Finally, the record showed the worker was paid sick and annual leave for all but just over a month of the period when he was found to be due maintenance and cure. Following trial, he was awarded maintenance, sick and annual leave, and medical expenses. On this record, awarding the worker prejudgment interest would have been punitive rather than compensatory.
OUTCOME: The appellate court affirmed the judgment of the district court.
