RICHARD A. CUNNINGHAM, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
BAY DRILLING COMPANY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the trial court's jury instructions regarding the decreased purchasing power of the dollar and the tax-free nature of damages were permissible.
An employee sued his employer under the Jones Act and General Maritime Laws, winning a favorable jury verdict. The employer appealed, challenging the …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Taxability Of Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
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.1
Appellant objects first to a charge 2 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.
Tfie 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.
. 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.
. “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.”
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Johnson v. Penrod Drilling Co., 510 F.2d 234 (5th Cir. 1975)
-
Domeracki v. Humble OIL & Ref. Co., 443 F.2d 1245 (3d Cir. 1971)
-
Petition of Canal Barge Co., Inc. v. Griffith, 480 F.2d 11 (5th Cir. 1973)
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Murphy v. Houma Well Serv., 409 F.2d 804 (5th Cir. 1969)
- Huth v. S. Pac. Co., 417 F.2d 526 (5th Cir. 1969)
- New Amsterdam Cas. Co. v. Soileau, 167 F.2d 767 (5th Cir. 1948)
- Ove Gustavsson Contracting Co., Inc. v. Floete, 374 U.S. 827 (U.S. 1963)
- Payne v. The Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co., 309 F.2d 546 (6th Cir. 1962)
- Cunningham v. Rederiet Vindeggen A/S and M/S Trolleggen, 333 F.2d 308 (2d Cir. 1964)
- The Prudential Ins. Co. OF Am. v. Leola Wilkerson, 327 F.2d 997 (5th Cir. 1964)
- Tex. State Life Ins. Co. v. Houghton, 335 U.S. 822 (U.S. 1948)
- Matthews v. Woody, 335 U.S. 822 (U.S. 1948)