Earl v. Bouchard Transportation Company, Inc.

735 F.Supp. 1167, modified 917 F.2d 1320 (2nd Cir. 1990)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P claimed that he injured his right elbow in an August 29, 1984 accident. The second and more serious injury occurred on December 13, 1984. On that date, Ds' tugboat, the Marion C. Bouchard, was tied to a dock in the East River by a single mooring line. The mooring line was about six inches in circumference and quite heavy. At one end was a loop which fit over a bollard located about eight feet from the string piece. The deck of the tugboat was approximately six feet below the level of the string piece. Although the task of casting off the mooring line is easily managed by two deckhands -- one casting the loop off the bollard, the other hauling in the line -- it can be difficult for just one deckhand. On the day of the accident, P received orders to cast off. Without any assistance from a second deckhand, P stepped up onto the bulwark and imparted a whip-like motion to the mooring line in an effort to remove it from the bollard. In the course of doing this, P lost his balance, fell from the bulwark, and landed with his right foot on a different line, severely spraining his ankle and aggravating his elbow injury. P brought an action against his employer under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.App. § 688, and general maritime law. P claimed injuries for two separate accidents in 1984. P was forced to retire on May 16, 1985, approximately a month before turning 62. P wants lost future earnings on the grounds that, absent injury, he would have continued to work at least an additional three years and five weeks (65th birthday), if not longer. D presented evidence at trial indicated that P's intention was to retire prior to the accidents had been to retire in June of 1985 when he turned 62 years of age. P denied having spoken about early retirement plans to his captain or fellow crew members. P's counsel presented the jury with two possible scenarios: retirement at age 65 as plaintiff testified was his intention, or retirement at age 67, based on the average work-life expectancy of a then-62-year old man. In its charge to the jury, the court presented the issue of retirement age as one of disputed fact. The jury found for P awarded him a total of $855,000 in damages, of which $425,000 was attributed to lost earnings suffered as a result of the second accident. D moved for a new trial or remittitur.