Opinion ID: 2195687
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Reduction of the damage award to present worth

Text: The defendant complains that the Justice below erred in his instructions to the jury regarding the reduction of the damage award to its present worth. It is alleged the Court's charge was misleading in that it could be interpreted as giving the jury an option to reduce or not reduce the gross amount of the verdict. Stated otherwise, the defendant's complaint is that the Justice erroneously failed to give a specific instruction on the mandatory aspect of the reduction upon request. It is clear that the measure of damages to which a plaintiff is entitled for the loss of future earning capacity is a sum equal to the present worth of . . . [the] diminution [in his future earnings] and not its aggregate for his expectancy of life. O'Brien v. J. G. White and Company, 1909, 105 Me. 308, 316, 74 A. 721, 724. As pointed out in Steppi v. Stromwasser, Del.Supr., 1972, 297 A.2d 26: Because of the capacity of money to earn money, the authorities are almost unanimous in holding an award for loss of future earnings must represent the present value of those earnings. By the award, the plaintiff immediately receives money which he would otherwise have received periodically over the span of years. Failure to recognize this fact by discounting the anticipated earnings would therefore constitute error. See also 25 C.J.S. Damages, § 87e; 22 Am.Jur.2d Damages, § 96. While the instructions originally given by the presiding Justice appear at best confusing and at worst inadequate, we cannot say that there was error in the supplemental instruction given to the jury after counsel had raised objections at side bar. The Court then sufficiently indicated the necessity to reduce to present worth the damages awarded for loss of future earning capacity. With respect to the reduction of the loss of future earnings to present worth, the parties at trial stipulated that the jury should be instructed to consider 5½% a reasonable average rate of return in computing present value of any award for future damages. The defendant charges error, because the Justice below in his instructions to the jury characterized the stipulated rate as advisory in nature and not of binding effect upon them. Not only was there no objection to the charge on this subject, but at side bar the defendant's counsel endorsed the instruction as given, when he stated: [We] maintain that it is mandatory that in making such award of future damages, that it is to be reduced to present value by what ever standards the jury may deem to be appropriate.  (Emphasis added). In the face of such trial record, it is imperative that the strong policy considerations underlying the rationale of Rule 51(b), M.R.C.P. be fully operative.