Opinion ID: 662080
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Adequacy of the Damages.

Text: 28 The measurement of pain and suffering in dollars is inescapably subjective, and [i]t is not our function to second guess the triers of fact who heard the plaintiff himself speak of his suffering. Tanno v. S.S. President Madison, 830 F.2d 991, 993 (9th Cir.1987). In reviewing nonpecuniary damages therefore, we accord even greater deference to the district court's findings. We will not disturb an award of damages for pain and suffering unless it either shocks the conscience or was motivated by the trial judge's passion or prejudice. Havens v. F/T Polar Mist, 996 F.2d 215, 219 (9th Cir.1993). 29 Here, the district court found that the injuries suffered by Mitchell caused him great personal pain and suffering and that he may need future surgery to correct his shoulder. The $10,000 awarded for pain and suffering, though on the low side, is not so grossly and palpably inadequate as to shock the court's conscience. Korek v. United States, 734 F.2d 923, 929 (2d Cir.1984). We reach this conclusion in light of the total amount of damages awarded to Mitchell and the district court's careful treatment of the entire damage issue. 30 Mitchell further argues that the district court erred in awarding him lost future wages which were insufficient based upon the evidence presented. Even though determining damages for lost future wages is a more objective task than ascertaining nonpecuniary damages, we still may not overturn the district court's determination of damages unless we find that it was clearly erroneous. Johnson v. United States, 704 F.2d 1431, 1441 (9th Cir.1983). The district court found that a crewmember on board a shrimp fishing vessel typically earns 10% of the vessel catch after deductions for fuel, ice and groceries, and that Mitchell's adjusted gross income for the 1988 fishing season was $7,715.00. In light of the evidence presented regarding Mitchell's past wages and his ability to perform work both at the time of trial and once he reached maximum medical cure, we cannot say that the district court clearly erred in its determination of damages. 31 The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.