Court Opinion

ID: 9459591
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 21:24:43.161425+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:36:13.838537
License: Public Domain

BRIGHT, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
I concur in Judge Ross’ opinion in this case, including requirement of an instruction on the present worth of future loss of earnings. I believe, however, that fairness to the plaintiff requires consideration of.likely increases in future earnings attributable to offset*117ting inflationary trends in the economy.1 In light of changes in the economic picture for the past 40 years, the present-worth instruction should be supplemented by appropriate comment of the court permitting the jury to take into account such increases in future earnings as may be likely to occur to offset decreases in the value of the dollar.

. While courts are divided on the question, consideration of inflationary trends in computing future loss of earnings has been approved in the case of a plaintiff who lost a foot in a train accident. Pierce v. New York Central R. R. Co., 304 F. Supp. 44 (W.D.Mich.1969). See Will-more v. Hertz Corp., 437 F.2d 357, 359-360 (6th Cir. 1971) ; of. Southern Pac. Co. v. Zehnle, 163 F.2d 453, 454-455 (9th Cir. 1947) (wrongful death action) ; Golden v. Sommers, 56 F.R.D. 3, 6 (M.D. Pa.1972) (no prejudice in allowing plaintiff’s reference to inflation) ; Brooks v. United States, 273 F.Supp. 619, 627-628 (D.S.C.1967) (wrongful death action) ; but see Johnson v. Penrod Drilling Co., 469 F.2d 897, 904-906 (5th Cir. 1972) ; Petition of United States Steel Corp., 436 F.2d 1256, 1279 (6th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 987, 91 S.Ct. 1649, 29 L. Ed.2d 153 (1971) ; Sleeman v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co., 414 F.2d 305, 308 (6th Cir. 1969) ; of. Williams v. United States, 435 F.2d 804, 807 (1st Cir. 1970) (wrongful death action).