Tindle v. Hunter Marine Transport, Inc.

Filing 89

Jury Instructions. (DJT)

fl LED

VANESSA L A•TRONG, OU:AK

JUN a0 Z016
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKYJV~Sf'~.~~~~{.ck{~~r
PADUCAH DIVISION ,
KY
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:14-CV-00110-TBR-LLK

DONNA TINDLE, as Administrator of the
Estate of Jimmie W. Tindle

v.
HUNTER MARINE TRANSPORT, INC.

JURY INSTRUCTIONS

Page 1 of 19

INTRODUCTION

Members of the jury, it is now time for me to instruct you about the law that you
must follow in deciding this case. I will start by explaining your duties and the general
rules that apply in every civil case. Then I will explain the elements, or parts, of the
claims and defenses in question.
You have two main duties as a juror: The first is to decide what the facts are
from the evidence that you saw and heard here in Court. Deciding what the facts are is
your job-not mine. Nothing that I have said or done during this trial was meant to
influence your decision about the facts in any way.
Your second duty is to take the law that I give you and to apply it to the facts. It
is my job to instruct you about the law, and you are bound by the oath you took at the
beginning of the trial to follow the instructions that I give you, even if you personally
disagree with them. This includes the instructions that I gave you during the trial and
these instructions now. All of the instructions are important, and you should consider
them together as a whole.
The lawyers may have talked about the law during their arguments. But if what
they said is different from what I say, you must follow what I say. What I say about the
law controls.
Perform these duties fairly. Do not let any bias, sympathy, or prejudice that you
may feel toward one side or the other influence your decision in any way. The law does
not permit you to be governed by sympathy, prejudice, or public opinion. All parties
expect that you will carefully and impartially consider all of the evidence, follow the
law as I give it to you, and reach a just verdict, regardless ofthe consequences.
Page 2 of 19

/

You should consider and decide this case as a dispute between persons of equal
standing in the community, of equal worth, and holding the same or similar stations in
life. A corporation is entitled to the same fair trial as a private individual. All persons,
including corporations and other organizations, stand equal before the law and are to be
treated as equals.
A corporation may act only through natural persons who are its agents or
employees.

Generally, any agents or employees of a corporation may bind the

corporation by their acts and declarations made while acting within the scope of their
duties as employees of the corporation.
You are to consider only the evidence in the case. Unless you are otherwise
instructed, the evidence in the case consists of the sworn testimony of the witnesses
regardless of who called the witness, all exhibits received in evidence regardless of who
may have produced them, and all facts and events that may have been admitted or
stipulated to. Statements and arguments by lawyers are not evidence. The lawyers are
not witnesses. What they have said in their opening statement, closing arguments, and
at other times is intended to help you understand the evidence, but it is not evidence.
You should use common sense in weighing the evidence and consider the
evidence in light of your own observations in life. If your experience tells you that
certain evidence reasonably leads to a conclusion, you are free to reach that conclusion.
In our lives, we often look at one fact and conclude from it that another fact exists. In
law, we call this an "inference." You are allowed to make reasonable inferences, but
any inference you make must be based on the evidence in the case.'
Another part of your job as jurors is to decide how credible, or believable, each
Page 3 of 19

witness was. This is your job, not mine. It is up to you to decide if a witness's
testimony was believable and how much weight you think it deserves. You are free to
believe everything that a witness said, or only part of it, or none of it at all. But you
should act reasonably and carefully in making these decisions.
You may be guided by the witness's demeanor while on the stand, the witness's
motive, and the extent to which, if at all, the witness's testimony is supported or
contradicted by other evidence in the case. Inconsistencies or discrepancies in the
testimony of a witness, or between the testimonies of different witnesses, may or may
not cause you to discredit that testimony. Two or more persons witnessing an incident
may see or hear it differently. An innocent mistake, like failing to recall something, is
not an uncommon experience. In weighing the effect of a discrepancy, always consider
whether it pertains to a matter of importance and whether the discrepancy results from
an innocent error or intentional falsehood.
A witness may be discredited or impeached by contradictory evidence, or by
evidence that, at some other time, the witness has said or done something, or has failed
to say or do something, which is inconsistent with the witness's present testimony. If
you believe any witness has been impeached or discredited, it is your task to give the
testimony of that witness the credibility, if any, that you think it deserves. If a witness is
shown to have knowingly testified falsely concerning any material matter, you have the
right to distrust that witness's testimony on that matter or any other matter too. An act
or omission is "knowingly" done if done voluntarily and intentionally, and not because
of mistake or accident or some other innocent reason.
You may consider other things that you think shed some light on the witness's

Page 4 of 19

believability. Use your common sense and your everyday experience in dealing with
other people, and then decide what testimony you believe and how much weight you
think it deserves. The weight of the evidence does not necessarily depend upon the
number of witnesses who testify for either side.
During the trial of this case, certain testimony has been presented to you by way
of deposition, consisting of sworn recorded answers to questions asked of the witness in
advance of the trial by the attorneys for the parties to the

cas~.

The testimony of a

witness who, for some reason, cannot be present to testify from the witness stand may
be presented in writing under oath or in a video recording. You are to consider such
testimony, to juqge its credibility, and to assign it whatever weight you think it deserves
in the same way as if the witness had been present and testified from the witness stand,
insofar as that is possible.
Usually, a witness

IS

not allowed to testify as to his or her opinion or

conclusions. When a witness has special training or experience that you find helpful,
however, that person may state his or her opinion on those technical matters. The fact
that a witness of that sort has given an opinion does not mean that you must accept it.
As with any other witness, it is up to you to decide whatever weight you think it
deserves, considering the reasons given for the opinion, the witness's qualifications, and
all of the other evidence in the case.
You might recall that, during the trial, some witnesses with special training or
experience were asked if they had been or will be compensated for their services. It is
not improper for such witnesses to be compensated for services. It is a customary and
accepted practice. No possible suggestion of impropriety results from compensation for
Page 5 of 19

the services of a witness whom you consider to have special training and experience.
Some of you have taken notes during the trial. You may use any notes taken by
you during trial.
Re~ember,

However, the notes should not be substituted for your memory.

notes are not evidence. If your memory should differ from your notes, then

you should rely on your memory and not your notes. You should not be influenced by
another juror's notes.
When you go to the jury room, you will select one juror to act as your
foreperson. The foteperson will preside over your discussions and will speak for you
here in Court. You will take these instructions to the jury room. When you have
reached a unanimous agreement, your foreperson will complete, date, and sign your
answers. Nothing I have said or done is intended to suggest what your verdict should
be. That is entirely for you to decide.
Once you start deliberating, do not talk to the marshal or to anyone else, except
each other, about the case. If you have any questions or messages, you must write them
down on a piece of paper, sign them, and give them to the marshal. The marshal will
give them to me, and I will respond as soon as I can. I may have to talk to the parties
about what you have asked, so it may take some time for me to get back to you.
One more thing about messages: Do not ever write down or tell anyone outside
the jury room how you stand on your votes. That should stay secret until you are
finished.
Your verdict or answer to any question must be unanimous. That is, all eight (8)
members of the jury must agree on any answer to the question and on the verdict. It is
your duty as jurors to discuss this case and to try to reach an agreement. You must each

Page 6 of 19

decide the case for yourself, but only after you have considered all of the evidence,
discussed it fully with your fellow jurors, and listened to the views of the other jurors.
Do not be afraid to change your opinion if the discussion persuades you that you should.
But do not make a decision simply because other jurors think that it is right, or simply
to reach a verdict. Your sole interest is to seek the truth from the evidence.

Page 7 of 19

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
Earlier, you heard testimony from Defendant Hunter Marine Transport, Inc.'s
Safety Manager Jonathan Bennett that the Health Information Portability and
Accountability Act of 1996, more commonly known as "HIP AA," prohibited Hunter
Marine from disclosing Jimmie Tindle's health information to Captain William "Billy"
Milam and other employees. HIP AA does not directly apply to employers. Instead,
'

under federal law, an employer may disclose an employee's medical condition or
history to the employee's supervisors and managers.

Page 8 of 19

INSTRUCTION NO. 1

The term "preponderance of the evidence" is used many times in these
instructions and deserves some explanation before addressing the claims and defenses
involved in the case. To establish something by a "preponderance of the evidence"
means to prove that something is more likely so than it is not so. In other words, a
preponderance of the evidence means such evidence as, when considered and compared
to that opposed to it, has more convincing force, and produces in your mind a belief that
what is sought to be proved is more likely true than not true. It does not, of course,
require proof to an absolute certainty, since proof to an absolute certainty is seldom
possible in any case.
In determining whether any fact in issue has been established by a
preponderance of the evidence in the case, you may-unless otherwise instructedconsider the testimony of all witnesses, regardless of who may have called them, and all
exhibits received into evidence, regardless of who may have produced them.
You may have heard of the term "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." That is a
stricter standard applicable in criminal cases. It does not apply in civil cases, such as
this one. Therefore, you should disregard it.

Page 9 of 19

INSTRUCTION NO. 2

The Plaintiff, Donna Tindle, alleges that the Defendant, Hunter Marine
Transport, Inc., acted negligently, causing the death of her husband, Jimmie Tindle,
during the course of his employment. Hunter Marine denies that it was negligent, or
that its negligence caused Mr. Tindle's death. Mrs. Tindle bears the burden of proof on
her claim.
Mrs. Tindle's claim is brought under a federal law known as the Jones Act. The
Jones Act permits any seaman who has suffered personal injury or death in the course of
his employment to recover damages from his employer under the conditions specified in
these Instructions. However, the Jones Act does not make the employer an insurer of
the seaman. In order to prevail on her claim of negligence under the Jones Act, Mrs.
Tindle must establish by a preponderance of the evidence:
(1)

that Hunter Marine Transport, Inc. was "negligent," and,

(2)

that such negligence was a "cause" of Jimmie Tindle's injuries or
death.
"Negligence" is the failure to use reasonable care.

Reasonable care is that

degree of care a reasonably careful person would use under like circumstances.
Negligence is either in doing something that a reasonably careful person would not do,
or failing to do something a reasonably careful person would do, under like or similar
circumstances. The amount of care exercised by a reasonably careful person varies in
proportion to the risk known to be involved in light of the surrounding circumstances,
and so the amount of caution required, in the exercise of reasonable care, will vary too.
To put it another way, as the danger that should reasonably be foreseen increases, so the
amount of care required by law also increases.
Page 10 of 19

Negligence under the Jones Act may consist of a breach of, or failure to comply
with, a duty required by law. Employers of seamen have a duty to act with reasonable
care to provide their employees a reasonably safe work environment. They must also
provide, or arrange to provide, prompt and adequate medical care for a seaman who is
in need of medical treatment, regardless of whether the seamen makes a distinct request
for such aid. The scope of that duty depends upon the circumstances of the case-the
seriousness of the injury or illness and the availability of aid. A seaman's employer is
responsible for the negligence of one of its employees while that employee is acting
within the course and scope ofhis employment.
The occurrence of an accident, standing alone, does not mean that anyone was
negligent or that anyone's negligence caused the accident. Likewise, the fact that an
employer conducts its operations in a manner similar to that of other companies is not
conclusive as to whether the employer was negligent or not.
Negligence is a "cause" of injury if it played any part, no matter how small, in
bringing about the actual injury. So, if you find from the evidence in the case that any
act or omission of Hunter Marine, however slight, contributed in any way toward any of
Mr. Tindle's injuries or death, you may find that his injuries or his death were caused by
Hunter Marine's negligence.
There can be more than one cause of an injury. That is, negligence may be a
"cause" of injury even though it operates in combination with the act of another or some
natural cause. The involvement of any other cause does not prevent a finding for Mrs.
Tindle, so long as you find that Hunter Marine's negligence played any part, no matter
how slight, in causing Jimmie Tindle's injuries or death.
Page 11 of 19

INSTRUCTION NO. 3

In addition to denying that it was negligent, or that its negligence was a cause of
Jimmie Tindle's injuries or death, Hunter Marine Transport, Inc. raises the defense of
contributory negligence.

That is, Hunter Marine argues that Mr. Tindle was also

negligent, and that his negligence was a cause of his injuries or death. Hunter Marine
bears the burden of proof on this defense. If you find Mr. Tindle was · contributorily
negligent, Donna Tindle may still recover. However, the amount of her recovery will be
reduced by the extent of Mr. Tindle's contributory negligence.
To establish its defense, Hunter Marine must establish by a preponderance of the
evidence:
(1)

that Jimmie Tindle was also "negligent"; and,

(2)

that such negligence was a "cause" of his injuries or death.
"Negligence" is the failure to use reasonable care. A seaman is obligated under

the Jones Act to act with reasonable care. Reasonable care is that degree of care a
reasonably careful seaman would use under like circumstances. The circumstances of a
seaman's employment include not only his reliance on his employer to provide a
reasonably safe work environment, but also his own experience, training, and education.
In other words, under the Jones Act, a seaman has the duty to exercise that degree of
care for his own safety that a reasonable seaman would exercise in like circumstances.
Negligence is a "cause" of injury if it played any part, no matter how small, in
bringing about the actual injury.

~o,

if you find from the evidence in the case that any

act or omission of Mr. Tindle, however slight, contributed in any way toward any of his
injuries or death, you may find that his injuries or his death were caused by his
Page 12 of 19

contributory negligence.
If you found that Hunter Marine was negligent, and that its negligence was a
cause of Mr. Tindle's injuries or death (as discussed in Instruction No. 2), but you also
find that Mr. Tindle's own negligence was a cause of his injuries or death, then you
must determine the percentage that Mr. Tindle's negligence contributed to his injuries or
death. You will provide this information by filling in the appropriate blanks at the end
of these Instructions. Do not make any reduction in the amount of damages that you
award to Mrs. Tindle. I will reduce the damages that you award by the percentage of
contributory negligence that you assign to Mr. Tindle, if any.

Page 13 of 19

INSTRUCTION NO. 4

If you find for the Plaintiff, Donna Tindle, on her Jones Act negligence claim,
you must determine her "damages." Mrs; Tindle has the burden of establishing her
damages by a preponderance of the evidence. "Damages" is the amount of money
which will reasonably and fairly compensate Mrs. Tindle for any injury you find was
caused by Hunter Marine Transport, Inc.'s negligence.
If you find that Mrs. Tindle has carried her burden of proof, she may recover
two types of damages.
The first type of damages that Mrs. Tindle may recover for the loss of support
and other financial benefits that Jimmie Tindle's family would have received from him.
If you find that evidence in the case establishes a reasonable likelihood of loss of future
support, then you must determine the present worth in dollars of that loss, since the
award of future damages necessarily requires that payment be made now for a loss that
will not actually be sustained until some future date. You may also consider the fact
that changes take place in the purchasing power of money and in the cost of living.
In order to make a reasonable adjustment for the present use, interest free, of
money representing a lump-sum payment of anticipated future loss, the law requires
you to discount, or reduce to its present worth, the amount of future loss by taking (1)
the interest rate or return on investment that Mrs. Tindle could reasonably be expected
to receive on an investment of the lump-sum payment, together with (2) the period of
time over which the future loss is reasonably certain to be sustained. Next, you must
reduce, or in effect deduct from, the total amount of anticipated future loss whatever
that amount would be reasonably certain to earn or return if invested at such a rate of
Page 14 of 19

interest over such future period of time. Include in I the verdict only an award for the
.
.
present-worth-the reduced amount--of anticipated future loss.
The second type of damages that Mrs. Tindle may recover is for the pain and
suffering experienced by Mr. Tindle before he died.

Mental or physical pain and

suffering are intangible things about which no evidence of value is required.

In

awarding these damages, you are not determining value, but you should award an
amount that will fairly compensate Mr. Tindle for his pre-death pain and suffering.
Any award you make to Mrs. Tindle is not subject to income tax. Neither the
state nor the federal government will tax it. Therefore, you should determine the
amount that Mrs. Tindle is entitled to receive without considering the effect of taxes
upon it.
In fixing the amount of your award, you may not include in, or add to an
otherwise just award, any sum for the purpose of punishing Hunter Marine, or to serve
as an example or warning for others. You may not include in your award any sum for
court costs or attorney fees.

Page 15 of 19