Court Opinion

ID: 9936819
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 19:00:09.597472+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:49.781720
License: Public Domain

Although I agree that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed, I would order a remittitur of the $1,000,000 compensatory damages awarded for Mr. Long's hearing loss to $250,000 instead of $500,000. Long's quality of life, both professionally and personally, has been lessened by the partial hearing loss, so some compensatory damages are appropriate. Even though Long had sustained some hearing loss before having an acoustic neuroma removed from his left ear, his loss of all hearing in that ear was a direct result of the removal of the acoustic neuroma, not the excessive noise he encountered at the CSX work site. After reviewing cases similar to this one, I conclude that a maximum award of $250,000, rather than $500,000, would be more consistent with the amounts awarded in those cases.See CSX Transp., Inc. v. Maynard, 667 So.2d 642
(Ala. 1995) (awarding $325,000 for healing loss resulting from exposure to noise during employee's tenure with CSX); CSXTransp., Inc. v. Dansby, 659 So.2d 35 (Ala. 1995) (awarding $105,000 for hearing loss sustained after being overexposed to noise for 37 years during employment with CSX); CSX Transp.,Inc. v. Bryant, 589 So.2d 706 (Ala. 1991) (awarding $25,000 for hearing loss due to 16 years of exposure to excessive noise). Thus, I think the $1,000,000 award is excessive and should be reduced to a figure not exceeding $250,000.