Court Opinion

ID: 9773563
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:49:39.673913+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:55.094784
License: Public Domain

CADENA, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
I agree that the verdict in this case is excessive, but I cannot agree that the error is cured by ordering a remittitur in the sum of $95,000.00.
The majority opinion in this case does not state which of the six separate awards of damages is excessive, nor does it indicate the extent to which each award is excessive.
It can persuasively be argued that the award of $115,000.00 for past and future physical pain and mental anguish is not excessive, considering the nature of the injury and its after-effects. But I find no basis for the award of $15,000.00 for loss of earning capacity during the approximately three years intervening between the time of the injury and the trial, nor for the award of $200,000.00 as compensation for loss of earning capacity “which, in reasonable probability,” plaintiff will sustain in the future.
There is no evidence to support a finding that, but for the injury, plaintiff would have, in reasonable probability, earned any amount whatever. There is no evidence that plaintiff had earned any income prior to the injury. This lack of evidence can *762probably be explained by the fact that plaintiff was a heroin addict. As Justice Klingeman points out, plaintiff, prior to the injury, was making only “marginal progress toward becoming productive or useful,” and he had been “shot up” a week prior to his injury. The majority opinion cannot go beyond the statement that plaintiffs outlook, prior to the injury, “was not devoid of hope.” Simply stated, there is no evidence to support a finding that plaintiff’s work history and “propensity to do anything” of a constructive nature would have been better in the future than it had been in the past. There is certainly no evidence that, but for the injury, he would have had the capacity to earn $15,000.00 during the three years preceding the trial and $200,000.00 during the remainder of his life expectancy. The excessiveness of the verdict concerning future impairment of earning capacity becomes patent when it is viewed in the light of the fact that the award of $200,000.00 represents merely the present value of the loss of earnings, and that plaintiff was not, prior to the injury, a normal young man of whom it could be said that he would become an ordinary productive member of society. Instead, he was a young man who, at best, was making only marginal progress toward overcoming his addiction. The possibility that a heroin addict will be rehabilitated is commonly known to be no more than slim.
The next awards which must be examined are those granting plaintiff recovery of $15,000.00 for past physical impairment and $100,000.00 for future physical impairment.
There can be no doubt that recovery of damages for physical impairment is proper, and that such recovery may properly be classified as an element of recoverable damage separate and apart from physical pain and loss of earning capacity. The example which comes most readily to mind is that of the young woman who, because of the injury, has become hideously scarred. The elements of recovery for physical impairment are sometimes grouped together under the classification “loss of enjoyment of life.” Impairment of the capacity to enjoy life should be compensable. Missouri Pacific Ry. R. Co. v. Handley, 341 S.W.2d 203 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1960, no writ); Galveston Electric Co. v. Biggs, 14 S.W.2d 307 (Tex.Civ.App.-Galveston 1929, writ ref’d); Annot. 15 A.L.R.3d 506 (1967). Cf. Locke v. International & G. N. R. Co., 25 Tex.Civ.App. 145, 60 S.W. 314 (Austin 1901, no writ). Inability to tie one’s shoe laces, to take care of one’s bodily needs, to hear beautiful music, to enjoy beautiful works of art, to play golf, etc. constitute a significant loss. But it seems clear that such impairment results in what the courts generally call “mental anguish.”
In this case, mental anguish and physical impairment were separately listed as com-pensable items of damage. The majority opinion speaks of the “possibility” of double recovery in a case where the elements of mental anguish and physical impairment are submitted separately. This is an obvious understatement. Overlapping, resulting in double recovery, seems to be inevitable, and the situation is not remedied by a general caveat which, as here, merely cautions the jury that it “should not include the same element of damages more than one time.”
In Houston Transit Co. v. Felder, 146 Tex. 428, 208 S.W.2d 880 (1948), the damage issue called for a lump sum award. The injury was instructed to consider past pain and suffering and mental anguish and disfigurement. Future pain and suffering and mental anguish were not submitted as recoverable elements of damages. The Supreme Court held that, under these circumstances, there was no significant prospect of a double recovery. In Green v. Baldree, 497 S.W.2d 342 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1973, no writ), it was held that permitting recovery for physical impairment as well as for lost earning capacity does not necessarily allow double recovery.
Resort to past decisions is not significantly fruitful. In International & G. N. Ry. Co. v. Butcher, 98 Tex. 462, 84 S.W.2d 1052 (1905), a submission .substantially in the form of that used by the trial court resulted in reversal because the manner of submis*763sion permitted a double recovery. A similar result was reached in International-G. N. Ry. Co. v. King, 41 S.W.2d 234 (Tex.Com.App.1931). In Felder, the Supreme Court distinguished King by saying merely that in the latter case the instruction “as a whole was confusing and misleading, and permitted the recovery of double damages,” while describing the situation in Felder as being “clearly different from and [not running] counter to [King] and the authorities it cites and follows:” No attempt is made in Felder to explain why one charge is confusing and misleading, permitting double recovery, while another is not. Subsequent cases relying on Felder dispose of King in the same cavalier manner.
If, as I believe, the charge in this case does more than merely create a possibility of double recovery, this form of submission should be condemned. Where the element of physical impairment is present, difficulty can be avoided by submitting the element of mental anguish, accompanied by an instruction to the effect that in awarding compensation for mental anguish, the element of physical impairment may be considered.
I would leave undisturbed the award of $115,000.00 for past and future pain and mental anguish. The award for loss of past earnings I would reduce to $5,000.00, while reducing the award for impaired earning capacity in the future to $100,000.00. For past and future physical impairment I would award only $50,000.00.
These changes would reduce the amount of plaintiff’s recovery to $270,000.00, requiring a remittitur of $175,000.00. I realize, of course, that in arriving at the amount of the required remittitur I have necessarily travelled a highway devoid of reliable guide signs, and that my conclusion is based on a feeling of what is right and just under the evidence in this case, making due allowance for the serious nature of plaintiff’s injuries while, at the same time, attempting to compensate for the fact that the manner of submission of the damage issue makes it highly probable that a double recovery resulted.