Court Opinion

ID: 9472489
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 04:01:56.619626+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:42:57.985384
License: Public Domain

E. GRADY JOLLY,
Circuit Judge, dissenting in part:
I dissent in the name of common sense, to part IV of the opinion.
The majority allows $515,000 for lost wages in this case. A conservative investment of these funds would yield to the plaintiff an annual income of $60,000. When the plaintiff was able bodied and fully employed by the defendant in this case, he earned approximately $30,0001 per annum. The injured plaintiff now earns $60,000 a year to compensate him for a job paying $30,000 per year. (I will not mention that the plaintiff is still able to work and earn a living in non-strenuous jobs.) Such an unrealistic and air-built result is rich fodder for those who would ridicule and contemn our courts.
It is clear to me that in this case the jury became outraged over a matter which we now hold that it had no basis to be outraged about. The verdict, in all of its parts, is a product of that unfounded outrage. The case should be sent back for a retrial on damages. That is what I would do and what ought to be done in this case for the sake of a fair and sober result.

. The plaintiff earned $9.05 per hour. With overtime, the plaintiffs pay at the time of the accident, if the proposed work-week schedule was actually worked, would have been $32,900 a year.