Opinion ID: 585918
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: future earning capacity

Text: 31 This court reviews the grant of a motion for directed verdict using the same standard used by the trial court. MacPherson v. University of Montevallo, 922 F.2d 766, 770 (11th Cir.1991). A district court may grant a motion for directed verdict 32 only when without weighing the credibility of witnesses, the facts and inferences point so strongly and overwhelmingly in favor of one party that a reasonable jury could not arrive at a contrary verdict; where substantial conflicting evidence exists in the record, a directed verdict is improper. 33 Johns v. Jarrard, 927 F.2d 551, 557 (11th Cir.1991). 34 At the close of the plaintiffs' evidence, the district judge directed a verdict in favor of the defendant on Mr. Davis' claimed loss of future earning capacity. Mr. Davis alleges that this action was error because there was sufficient evidence on this issue to create a jury question. Mr. Davis' brother testified that Mr. Davis could not perform the physical duties previously undertaken, and that Mr. Davis' permanent impairment forced the company to hire another person to do his former job. In general, Mr. Davis' brother indicated that Mr. Davis produced less for the company than he did prior to the accident. 35 The defendant argues that Mr. Davis' earnings have actually increased since the accident, that he continues to be paid the same salary, and has the same share of the profits, which profits have increased since Mr. Davis now works in the office. Based upon this evidence, the trial judge directed a verdict for the defendant because he found that the plaintiffs had only proved that Mr. Davis suffered an impairment that prevented him from working in the field. This impairment, the district court concluded, had not translated into any monetary loss. The record really does not support this conclusion. 36 Under Florida law, a trial court should instruct the jury on future loss of earning capacity when there is evidence of a permanent injury. Hatfield v. Wells Brothers, Inc., 378 So.2d 33, 34 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.), cert. denied, 388 So.2d 1119 (Fla.1980). In addition, loss of future earning capacity may be compensated even when a plaintiff has moved into a more profitable line of work. Id. See also United States v. Jacobs, 308 F.2d 906 (5th Cir.1962). There was evidence that the business hired another person to do part of what Mr. Davis had done. 37 We believe the plaintiffs' evidence was sufficiently probative of the value of Mr. Davis' services and of his reduced earning ability to create a jury question. The district court therefore erred by granting a directed verdict for the defendant. 38