Opinion ID: 490593
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Specificity of the Findings

Text: 10
11 Appellants claim that the district court erred in failing to award damages for Mr. Wolkenhauer's disability and disfigurement resulting from the collision. The appellants further maintain that the court's award for damages was deficient because the court failed to distinguish between past and future pain and suffering. The appellees contend that the district court's findings comport with the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a). They also claim that Mr. Wolkenhauer's disability and future pain and suffering were compensated by the $50,000 award for pain and suffering. 12 In this diversity case, we must decide whether the district court's damages award compensated the appellants for their injuries under Illinois law and whether the court's findings are sufficiently detailed to demonstrate the basis for the award in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a). Under Illinois law, the court must award damages that will reasonably and fairly compensate the plaintiff for the injuries sustained as a result of the defendant's negligence. The primary purpose of tort law is to compensate plaintiffs for the injuries they have suffered wrongfully at the hands of others, and damages for negligence are ordinarily computed by comparing the condition plaintiff would have been in but for the tort with plaintiff's impaired condition as a result of the wrong. Goldberg v. Ruskin, 128 Ill.App.3d 1029, 84 Ill.Dec. 1, 5, 471 N.E.2d 530, 534 (1984), aff'd, 113 Ill.2d 482, 101 Ill.Dec. 818, 499 N.E.2d 406 (1986). In an action for personal injury, the plaintiff may recover reasonable medical expenses, Department of Law Enforcement v. Willis, 61 Ill.App.3d 495, 18 Ill.Dec. 775, 778, 378 N.E.2d 239, 242 (1978), impairment of earning capacity, Robinson v. Greeley and Hansen, 114 Ill.App.3d 720, 70 Ill.Dec. 376, 380, 449 N.E.2d 250, 254 (1983), pain and suffering, lost wages, and disability and disfigurement. Jurney v. Lubeznik, 72 Ill.App.2d 117, 218 N.E.2d 799, 805 (1966). The jury or trial judge is vested with discretion in making its damages determinations. As an appellate court reviewing that determination, we must keep in mind that [b]efore an award of damages will be disturbed on review the size of the damages must clearly indicate that it was the result of prejudice or passion. Messina v. Zody, 13 Ill.App.3d 566, 300 N.E.2d 851, 853 (1973). 13 Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in pertinent part, provides: 14 In all actions tried upon the facts without a jury, ... the court shall find the facts specially and state separately its conclusions of law thereon.... Findings of fact, whether based on oral or documentary evidence, shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge of the credibility of the witnesses.... 15 In assessing what damages resulted from the defendants' negligence, this court is bound by the trial court's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. Berwind Corp. v. Litton Indus., Inc., 532 F.2d 1, 8 (7th Cir.1976). In reviewing the specificity of findings supporting awards for damages, the courts have acknowledged that the degree of exactness of the findings required depends on the circumstances of the particular case. Fuchstadt v. United States, 434 F.2d 367, 370 (2d Cir.1970) (quoting Kelley v. Everglades Drainage Dist., 319 U.S. 415, 419, 63 S.Ct. 1141, 1143, 87 L.Ed. 1485 (1942)). In certain situations, detailed findings are necessary so that the appellate court is able to evaluate the considerations that prompted the district court to make the award. Itemization of the award is particularly appropriate when the total amount awarded may appear to be an overly generous one unless so substantiated. Id. However, as stated by the Fifth Circuit, adequate review of an award can often be accomplished even though the award is in 'lump sum' form. Neill v. Diamond M. Drilling Co., 426 F.2d 487, 491 (5th Cir.1970) (per curiam). 16 In this case, the district court did not award damages in a lump sum form and its findings were sufficiently specific to satisfy the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a). 1 For example, the court itemized the special damages and awarded Mr. Wolkenhauer his expenditures for such costs as ambulance fees, rehabilitation, medical treatment, prescriptions and anesthesia. Further, read in context, the court's award for pain and suffering compensated Mr. Wolkenhauer not only for past pain and suffering, but also for future pain and suffering. The district court stated that [t]he fact that an injury does not involve substantial permanent disability does not mean it did not and does not generate a lot of pain and suffering. Wolkenhauer v. Smith, No. 82-1251, mem. op. at 19 (C.D.Ill. Oct. 28, 1986); R.42 at 19 [hereinafter cited as Mem. op.]. Implicit in this statement is the court's recognition that Mr. Wolkenhauer's compensation encompasses both his past and future pain and suffering, as well as the 5% upper extremity impairment that he suffered. 2 Finally, while appellants have demonstrated that Mr. Wolkenhauer was partially disabled as a result of the accident, they have not shown that he suffered any disfigurement. Even if the surgery performed on Mr. Wolkenhauer's shoulder left scars, the appellants have not introduced evidence to show that these scars were disfiguring. Therefore, the district court was not required to award Mr. Wolkenhauer an additional amount for disfigurement. 17 We agree with the appellees that the district court's findings regarding damages for pain and suffering were adequate under Illinois law and that the $50,000 award compensated Mr. Wolkenhauer for his 5% upper extremity impairment and for future pain and suffering. We also conclude that the district court's findings were sufficiently detailed to support the award for pain and suffering. 18
19 The appellants contend that Mr. Wolkenhauer is entitled to recover damages for his retraining expenses and for his future lost earnings. Appellants claim that Mr. Wolkenhauer should receive compensation for the tuition, rent and commuting expenses he incurred while he received training as a robotics technician. Appellants further maintain that an award of future lost earnings is necessary because Mr. Wolkenhauer's injury impaired his ability to work and reduced his future earning capacity. Appellees contend that the district court properly denied Mr. Wolkenhauer any award for retraining expenses because he discontinued the training and is physically capable of driving a truck. The appellees also claim that Mr. Wolkenhauer is not entitled to recover damages for future lost wages because such an award would be speculative. In appellees' view, Mr. Wolkenhauer's inability to work resulted generally from the unavailability of trucking positions and specifically from the insolvency of his former employer, Briggs Transport Company, not from his injury. 20 The district court carefully evaluated whether Mr. Wolkenhauer was entitled to damages for retraining expenses and concluded that the appellees need not compensate appellants for those expenses. We do not find the district court's finding to be clearly erroneous. The district judge initially thought that an award for retraining expenses was appropriate, but, upon reflection, concluded that such an award was unwarranted. He noted that Mr. Wolkenhauer expressed doubts about continuing in the robotics training program. Mem. op. at 14-15. Further, because Mr. Wolkenhauer was actually driving trucks, retraining as a robotics technician was not necessitated as a result of any disability he suffered from the accident. While Mr. Wolkenhauer experiences some pain from driving a truck, the pain does not prevent him from driving trucks and he has received compensation for that pain in the form of the $50,000 pain and suffering award. 3 21 We also do not find the district court's conclusion that Mr. Wolkenhauer is not entitled to recover future lost wages to be clearly erroneous. Under Illinois law, the measure of damages for impairment of earning capacity is the difference between the amount which plaintiff was capable of earning before his injury and that which he is capable of earning thereafter. Robinson, 70 Ill.Dec. at 380, 449 N.E.2d at 254. The difference between the plaintiff's actual earnings before and after the injury does not constitute the measure of damages. Rather, [d]amages should be estimated on the injured person's ability to earn money. Id. 22 Based upon the testimony at trial, the court determined that the major factor preventing Mr. Wolkenhauer from finding permanent employment was the bankruptcy of the trucking company for which he had previously worked. The court noted that the reduction in the use of appellant's left arm is only 5% and that he has been able to drive trucks on a part-time basis. After reviewing the evidence presented, the court concluded that there are too many other causative factors present in the record (e.g., economic conditions in the trucking industry) to permit the Court to say that the injury he received in the accident is a proximate cause of his present or future unemployment. Mem. op. at 17. In view of Illinois case law requiring that recovery for impairment of earning capacity be limited to such loss as is reasonably certain to occur, Christou v. Arlington Park-Washington Park Race Tracks Corp., 104 Ill.App.3d 257, 60 Ill.Dec. 21, 24, 432 N.E.2d 920, 923 (1982), the district court correctly determined that Mr. Wolkenhauer's loss of future earnings resulting from the accident was too speculative to be compensable.