Court Opinion

ID: 9465857
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 00:57:35.33954+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:39:24.362702
License: Public Domain

MERRITT, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The Court’s opinion, though purportedly based on Michigan law, pulls from thin air arbitrary figures as the maximum allowable award for each item of damages. These figures reflect neither the proof in the record nor the liberality of Michigan courts towards damage awards. Although I believe the District Court erred in several respects and that the damages awarded were too high as a result, I would remand the case to the District Court for correction of the errors and re-computation of the award.
I. Future Pain and Suffering
The Court claims that the award of $68,-390 for future pain and suffering is excessive because Clissold will suffer less in the future than during the 41/2 years prior to the trial. The District Judge awarded damages at the same rate of $5,000 per year. Clissold will continue to have some pain, immobility and awkwardness. His recreation will be limited. The District Court found that it is likely that he will have arthritis.
Michigan courts have seldom reduced damage awards for pain and suffering.1 Recently, in Pippen v. Denison, 66 Mich. App. 664, 239 N.W.2d 704 (1976), the Michigan Court of Appeals approved a $1,250,000 damage award to a 67-year-old man for the *42loss of his arm. Approximately $1,100,000 of the award was for pain and suffering, or $80,000 per year for the plaintiff’s life expectancy. 239 N.W.2d at 710-13 (Gillis, J. dissenting). Although the loss of an arm is more extreme than the injuries suffered by Clissold, the award for pain and suffering in Pippen was much larger. The Pippen case demonstrates to me the liberality of Michigan courts and the deference given to trial courts in setting awards for pain and suffering.
In view of this attitude of Michigan’s courts, I do not believe that an award of $5,000 per year for Clissold’s future pain and suffering is excessive. The Court’s opinion that the award is excessive and shocks the judicial conscience fails to recognize that it is the conscience of the Michigan appellate courts to which we must look. The District Court, however, did err by not reducing the award to its value at the time the complaint was filed.2 Accordingly, I would vacate the award for future pain and suffering and remand for correction of this error.
II. Lost Future Wages
The Court arbitrarily reduces the District Court’s award for loss of future wage earning capacity from $143,684.83 to $83,348.41. Although the Court cites Bruno v. Detroit Institute of Technology, 51 Mich.App. 593, 215 N.W.2d 745 (1974), to indicate the process by which damages for loss of future earning capacity are calculated in Michigan, the Court does not attempt to apply Bruno to the facts of this case. Rather, the Court decrees that $83,398.41 is all that plaintiff is entitled to. This figure also came from thin air.
Furthermore, the Court has held the plaintiff to a burden of proof for recovery of lost future earning capacity more stringent than Michigan law requires. To recover for such future losses, a plaintiff must prove (1) that he has suffered a loss of future earning capacity and (2) the monetary amount of the future loss. The Court correctly states that, to prove the first element, loss of capacity, the plaintiff must show that the loss is of “such a degree of probability . . as to amount to [a] reasonable certainty.” Kellom v. City of Ecorse, 329 Mich. 303, 45 N.W.2d 293, 295 (1951). The Court apparently concluded that the plaintiff had met this burden or it would not have affirmed the award as modified.
Regarding the second element of proof, i. e. the actual amount of loss, the Court held that the District Court’s award was “based on undue speculation so that the loss was not in all respects ‘a reasonable certainty’.” By requiring the actual amount of future loss to be proven to a reasonable certainty, the majority misconstrued Michigan law. Once the loss of capacity has been proven to a reasonable certainty, Michigan courts have been historically liberal regarding the calculation of the actual award. This liberality reflects the hypothetical and speculative nature of all future projections. As stated in Allison v. Chandler, 11 Mich. 542 (1863):
Since, from the nature of the case, the damages cannot be estimated with certainty, and there is a risk of giving by one course of trial less, and by the other course more than a fair compensation — to say nothing of justice — does not sound policy require that the risk should be thrown upon the wrong doer instead of the injured party?
Id. at 554-563 The majority ignored Allison and cast upon the plaintiff the risk of uncertainty.
The proof of future wage loss was not too speculative and the District Court was not clearly wrong in estimating the loss. The *43evidence shows that Clissold’s loss could be as great as 25 per cent for 211/2 years, adjusted by a 7.44 per cent annual cost of living increase. The District Judge’s award was “within the range of the proof.” Pierce v. New York Central Railroad Co., 409 F.2d 1392, 1397 (6th Cir. 1969). Therefore, I would affirm the substance of the award for loss of future wage earning capacity. I would, however, remand for re-computation of the award after the correction of the following two errors:
A. Method of reduction to present value. — The process by which the District Court arrived at the figure of $143,684.83 as the present value of Clissold’s loss of future wage earning capacity is somewhat unclear. It is apparent that the District Court based its calculations on a determination that Clissold’s “average” future weekly wage loss over the 21V2 year period would amount to $247.87. The lower court then reduced this “average” weekly loss to present value as of the date of judgment by a formula not explained in its opinion, and apparently calculated the present value of Clissold’s average annual future wage loss by multiplying this figure by 2IV2 years to arrive at $143,-684.83 as the present value of Clissold’s future wage losses.
This method of calculating present value is not proper under Michigan law. According to the Bruno case, supra, the proper method is to (i) compute the actual loss for each year in the future, (ii) reduce the loss for each future year to present value, and (iii) take the sum of these properly reduced figures. 215 N.W.2d at 749. Applying the Bruno formula to this case, it is evident that the District Judge’s figure overstates the present value of Clissold’s future wage loss. In the appendix to this dissent I have, for purposes of illustration, calculated the present value by the Bruno method. I arrived at a figure of $130,505.55, some $13,-000 less than the District Judge awarded.
B. Reduction to date of complaint. —Michigan law also requires that future damage awards be reduced to their value as of the date the complaint was filed.4 It appears that the District Court reduced the award only to its value as of the date of judgment.
III. Lost Overtime
I agree with the Court’s opinion on this element of damages to the extent that it points out instances where the proof of loss of future overtime was unclear. I would, however, remand the issue to the District Court instead of again pulling a figure out of the air.
IV. Loss of Consortium
I do not believe that the award to Mrs. Clissold of $30,100 for loss of consortium is grossly excessive. Michigan courts have displayed the same reluctance to reduce loss of consortium awards5 as they have regarding claims for pain and suffering.6 In view of this liberal approach, I do not believe that a Michigan court would find the award excessive. Accordingly, I would affirm the District Court’s award for this item of damages.
Appendix to follow.
*44APPENDIX

. Phillips v. Rolston, 376 Mich. 264, 137 N.W.2d 158 (1965); Bennett v. Hill, 342 Mich. 754, 71 N.W.2d 220 (1955); Day v. Toyer, 341 Mich. 189, 67 N.W.2d 74, (1954); Torma v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 336 Mich. 468, 58 N.W.2d 149 (1953); Vink v. House, 336 Mich. 292, 57 N.W.2d 887 (1953); Denny v. Garavaglia, 333 Mich. 317, 52 N.W.2d 521 (1952).

. See note 4 infra.

. See also Phillips v. Rolston, supra note 1, 137 N.W.2d at 161; Schankin v. Buskirk, 354 Mich. 490, 93 N.W.2d 293, 297-98 (1958); Coger v. Mackinaw Prod. Co., 48 Mich.App. 113, 210 N.W.2d 124, 130-31 (1973).

. Bruno, supra, 215 N.W.2d at 749. Of course, once an award is reduced to value as of the date of complaint, interest may then be added. Mich.Comp.Laws Ann. § 600.6013 (1967).

. Pippen v. Denison, 66 Mich.App. 664, 239 N.W.2d 704 (1976), discussed supra, held that $500,000 for loss of consortium was not excessive. See also Hixson v. Schefke, 40 Mich.App. 218, 198 N.W.2d 758 (1972) ($5,000 held not excessive); Asmus v. Barrett, 30 Mich.App. 570, 186 N.W.2d 819 (1971) ($5,400 not excessive).

. See note 1 supra and accompanying text.