Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-05140/USCOURTS-ca10-89-05140-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Crawford Enterprises Manufacturing, Inc.
Appellee
Ryder/P-I-E Nationwide, Inc.
Appellant

Document Text:

PILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United Srafft Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

CRAWFORD ENTERPRISES 

MANUFACTURING, INC., 

v. 

Plaintiff-AppelleeCross-Appellant, 

RYDER/P-I-E NATIONWIDE, INC., 

Defendant-AppellantCross-Appellee, 

DAVID P. KLINGSHIRN, 

Third-party-defendant. 

CRAWFORD ENTERPRISES 

MANUFACTURING, INC., 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

RYDER/P-I-E NATIONWIDE, INC.~ THE 

AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY OF READING, 

PENNSYLVANIA, Surety, 

Defendants-Appellants, 

DAVID P. KLINGSHIRN, 

Third-party-defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * 

* 

NOV 6 1990 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

Nos. 89-5140 

. & 

89-5154 

(D.C. No. 84-C-395-B) 

(N.D. Okla.) 

No. 90-5110 

(D.C. No. 84-C-395-B) 

( N • D • Okla • ) 

This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-5140 Document: 010110047549 Date Filed: 11/06/1990 Page: 1 
Before McKAY, McWILLIAMS, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of these appeals. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cases are therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Defendant, Ryder/P-I-E Nationwide Inc., appeals in No. 

89-5140 from an order of the district court determining the amount 

of damages and prejudgment interest to be awarded plaintiff 

following remand from this court. Crawford Enters. Mfg., Inc. v. 

Ryder/P-I-E Nationwide, Inc., Unpublished Nos. 85-2167, 85-2208 

(10th Cir. filed Dec. 13, 1988). Plaintiff cross appeals in No. 

89-5154 arguing that the district court exceeded the scope of the 

mandate by holding a hearing on damages. In No. 90-5110, 

defendant and its surety, American Casualty, appeal from an order 

of the district court enforcing American Casualty's liability and 

entering judgment for $375,000.00. 

In 1982, Cooper Energy Services contracted with Allstates 

Trucking Company, a predecessor in interest to defendant, 

Ryder/P-I-E Nationwide, Inc., to ship to plaintiff, the purchaser, 

two internal combustion engines which it had manufactured. The 

truck upon which the engines were being transported ran off the 

road and the engines were thrown to the ground and extensively 

damaged. Plaintiff filed suit. During trial, defendant admitted 

liability. Therefore, the sole issue before the court was the 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-5140 Document: 010110047549 Date Filed: 11/06/1990 Page: 2 
amount of damages to be awarded. The court calculated damages 

based on the cost of repair of the engines, plus compensation for 

their diminished value and plaintiff's out-of-pocket expenses. It 

declined to award prejudgment interest. 

On appeal, this court held that plaintiff could elect the 

method by which damages were to be calculated. Here, plaintiff 

had elected the difference between the fair market value the 

property would have had had it been transported safely, and the 

fair market value of the property in its damaged condition 

pursuant to the Carmack Amendment of the Interstate Commerce Act, 

49 u.s.c. S 11707. See Reed v. Aaacon Auto Transp .• Inc., 637 

F.2d 1302, 1305 (10th Cir. 1981). We affirmed the district 

court's judgment in part and remanded for a redetermination of 

damages under the Carmack Amendment. We also remanded for a 

determination of whether prejudgment interest should be awarded. 

On remand, the district court held a hearing on the issue of 

damages. At the hearing, plaintiff advised the court that its 

finding that the fair market value of the engines was $553,745.00 

was in error. This amount was based upon plaintiff's subsequent 

markup when sold in the regular course of business and included 

the cost of the engines plus the costs of putting them on skids 

and other preparations needed for the finished packaged product 

which plaintiff sold as gas compression engines for offshore oil 

rigs. Plaintiff agreed with the court that the proper figure for 

damages should be the original cost of the engines--$387,622.00, 

plus profit and overhead. Record, Vol.Vat 42. The court then 

awarded $417,278.20--the invoice price of the engines, plus twenty 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-5140 Document: 010110047549 Date Filed: 11/06/1990 Page: 3 
percent markup for overhead and profit, minus the market value of 

the engines after the accident ($50,000), plus plaintiff's 

out-of-pocket expenses. 

On appeal, defendant argues that the district court erred in 

awarding plaintiff lost profits and overhead expenses. Defendant 

argues that instead of receiving evidence of "true" market value, · 

the court based the market value on "normal" markups including 

profit and overhead. Defendant raised this argument in its first 

appeal. See Defendant's Brief on Appeal, No. 85-2167 at 7. 

There, this court held that the argument was without merit. That 

holding now constitutes the law of the case and is binding here. 

Defendant also argues that the district court erred in 

failing to deduct the full salvage value of the engines and in 

excluding testimony of a witness offered by defendant regarding 

that value. We will not disturb the district court's findings of 

fact on appeal unless they are clearly erroneous. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

52(a). "[A] finding of fact is 'clearly erroneous' if it is 

without factual support in the record, or if the appellate court, 

after reviewing all the evidence, is left with the definite and 

firm conviction that a mistake has been made." LeMaire ex rel. 

LeMaire v. United States, 826 F.2d 949, 953 (10th Cir. 1987). 

Plaintiff presented evidence at the first trial as to the 

salvage value of the engines. The district court found that the 

salvage value was $50,000. The court acted within its discretion 

in declining to take additional evidence regarding this issue at 

the hearing following remand. Because the district court's 

4 

Appellate Case: 89-5140 Document: 010110047549 Date Filed: 11/06/1990 Page: 4 
• determination is supported by evidence, we cannot determine that 

that finding is clearly erroneous. 

In its cross appeal, plaintiff argues that the district court 

exceeded the mandate by holding an additional hearing. We 

remanded this case for a redetermination of damages. The district 

court acted within its discretion in deciding whether to hold an 

additional hearing addressing specific identified issues. 1 

Plaintiff also argues that defendant is barred from taking 

this appeal and moves for sanctions on the ground that defendant 

raised the same issues in its first appeal. The issues on appeal 

are sufficiently distinct not to render this appeal totally 

frivolous. 

While appeal numbers . 89-5140 and 89-5154 were pending, 

plaintiff filed a motion in district court to enforce the 

liability of defendant's surety, American Casualty. 

After the district court entered judgment in 1985, defendant 

contracted with American Casualty as surety to post a supersedeas 

bond in the amount of $375,000.00. In 1989, following entry of 

its amended judgment, the district court ordered that the bond be 

increased to $663,634.00 and further ordered that if the bond were 

not increased, plaintiff could proceed with execution on the 

amended judgment. Defendant failed to post the increased bond and 

1 We note that it was at this second hearing that plaintiff's 

counsel advised the court that its original finding regarding the 

fair market value of the engines prior to the accident was in 

error. We commend counsel for performing his duty as an officer 

of the court by dealing with the court in good faith and with 

candor. See, e.g., United States v. Associated Convalescent 

Enters .• Inc., 766 F.2d 1342, 1346 (9th Cir. 1985). 

5 

Appellate Case: 89-5140 Document: 010110047549 Date Filed: 11/06/1990 Page: 5 
plaintiff moved to enforce liability. The court granted the 

motion and defendant and its surety appealed. 

Following retention of new counsel, .American Casualty moved 

to withdraw its appeal. That motion was granted without prejudice 

to the remaining parties. Plaintiff then moved to dismiss the 

appeal on the alternative grounds that this court is without 

jurisdiction over the appeal or that the appeal is now moot. 

Defendant filed an objection, without citation to authority, on 

the ground that it is entitled to appeal because it is the 

principal on the bond and, therefore, must indemnify the surety 

for any losses sustained. 

The district court entered judgment against the surety only. 

The court did not determine . any rights or liabilities between 

defendant and its surety. Defendant has no standing to question 

the district court's judgment. 

The judgments of the .united States District Court for the 

Northern District of Oklahoma are AFFIRMED in Nos. 89-5140 and 

89-5154. Plaintiff's motion for sanctions is DENIED • . Plaintiff's 

motion to dismiss appeal No. 90-5110 is GRANTED. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

6 

Appellate Case: 89-5140 Document: 010110047549 Date Filed: 11/06/1990 Page: 6