Court Opinion

ID: 9570711
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:25:33.41202+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:15:13.695549
License: Public Domain

HOLMAN, J.,
concurring in the result.
I disagree with that part of the opinion which holds that it was proper to admit in evidence a computation of future loss of wages based upon the earnings of another brakeman. The evidence relates to future earning capacity. The opinion assumes that because there is similar seniority, there is sufficient similarity between earning capacities to make what the other workman earned relevant. The error in that assumption is that plaintiff’s demonstrated earning capacity is at variance with such an assumption. Without any showing why plaintiff earned less (i.e., temporary illness, injury, etc.), the jury is allowed to assume that in the future plaintiff will earn as much as the other workman. This is not a valid assumption in the face of proof of what they actually earned and in the absence of proof why plaintiff in the past has been earning less.
Denecke, Howell, and Bryson, JJ, join in this concurring opinion.