Summary
In Cunningham v. Bay Drilling Co., 421 F.2d 1398 (5th Cir. 1970), a suit under the Jones Act and the general maritime law, we held that the court did not err in charging the jury that decreased purchasing power of the dollar is a proper element for consideration in determining the amount of tort award.
Summary of this case from Canal Barge Co. v. GriffithOpinion
No. 27987 Summary Calendar.
January 26, 1970.
Henry D. McNamara, Jr., Mouton, Roy, Carmouche Hailey, Metairie, La., for appellant.
Chester A. Eggleston, Slavich Eggleston, New Orleans, La., for appellee.
Before THORNBERRY, MORGAN and CARSWELL, Circuit Judges.
This is an action brought by employee, Cunningham, under the Jones Act for negligence and the General Maritime Laws for unseaworthiness, against his employer, Bay Drilling Company, in which the jury returned a favorable verdict and the district court entered judgment against the employer for damages. Employer Bay appeals, complaining of the trial court's charge to the jury.
Pursuant to Rule 18 of the Rules of this Court, we have concluded on the merits that this case is of such character as not to justify oral argument and have directed the clerk to place the case on the Summary Calendar and to notify the parties in writing. See Murphy v. Houma Well Service, 5th Cir. 1969, 409 F.2d 804, Part I; and Huth v. Southern Pacific Company, 5th Cir. 1969, 417 F.2d 526, Part. I.
Appellant objects first to a charge given on the decreased purchasing power of the dollar. This Court has held permissible a charge to the jury that it can consider the present purchasing power of the dollar ( See New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. Soileau, 5th Cir. 1948, 167 F.2d 767, 6 A.L.R.2d 128, cert. denied, 335 U.S. 822, 69 S.Ct. 45, 93 L. Ed. 376), but appellant urges here that the court erred because it allowed the jury to engage in speculation concerning future dollar values. The objection is without merit.
"It is now well recognized that the decreased purchasing power of the dollar, due to rise in living expenses, is a proper element for consideration in determining the amount of award in a tort action. Courts take judicial notice of that fact."
The second complaint appellant makes is to the court's refusal to give a charge instructing the jury that any award for damages would not be subject to payment of federal or state income taxes. We believe the refusal was proper. Prudential Insurance Company of America v. Wilkerson, 5th Cir. 1964, 327 F.2d 997; Payne v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, 6th Cir. 1962, 309 F.2d 546, cert. denied, 374 U.S. 827, 83 S.Ct. 1865, 10 L.Ed.2d 1051; Cunningham v. Rederiet Vindeggen A/S, 2nd Cir. 1964, 333 F.2d 308.
Affirmed.