Edwards v. Permobil, Inc. et al
Filing
180
ORDER AND REASONS denying 101 Permobil's Motion in Limine to exclude plaintiff's evidence on future damages. Signed by Chief Judge Sarah S. Vance on 8/12/13. (jjs, )
Edwards v. Permobil, Inc. et al
Doc. 180
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
DERRICK EDWARDS
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO: 11-1900
PERMOBIL, INC., ET AL.
SECTION: R
ORDER AND REASONS
Permobil moves to exclude plaintiff's evidence on future
damages because plaintiff has not designated an expert to
discount any award for future damages to present value.1 For the
following reasons, Permobil's motion is denied.
I.
BACKGROUND
In 1989, Derrick Edwards suffered an injury to his spinal
cord, and he has been paralyzed from the neck down ever since.2
In 2007, Edwards purchased a wheelchair from Permobil, Inc., the
C500 (the "2007 Chair").3 On July 8, 2010, Edwards suffered the
injury that is at the center of this dispute. He was seated in
the 2007 Chair in the back of a van when a bolt on the chair
broke, and he fell backwards.4 Edwards alleges that he suffered
multiple injuries and sues multiple defendants.
1
R. Doc. 101.
2
R. Doc. 102-2 at 10-12.
3
R. Doc. 102-5.
4
R. Doc. 98-2 at 31-32.
Dockets.Justia.com
II.
DISCUSSION
Permobil moves to exclude evidence of plaintiff's future
damages because plaintiff has not designated an expert economist
that will "provide the jury with the method of applying an
appropriate below-market discount rate so that it can adjust the
costs of future damages . . . to present value."5
While future damages must be discounted to present value,
Culver v. Slater Boat Co. (Culver II), 722 F.2d 114, 122 (5th
Cir. 1983), an economic expert is not an absolute prerequisite to
recover future damages. See Barocco ex rel. Barocco v. Ennis Inc.
of Colo., No. 02-1450, 2003 WL 21406179, at *5 (E.D. La. June 16,
2003)(citing Barocco v. Ennis Inc. of Colo., No.02-1450, 2003 WL
1342973, at *2 (E.D. La. Mar. 19, 2003)); Bonura v. Sea Land
Service, Inc., 505 F.2d 665, 669 (5th Cir. 1974)(aligning the
Fifth Circuit with the majority of circuits that have “presumed
that jurors are capable enough and aware enough of modern
economics to be able to reduce gross loss to present value
intelligently once they have been instructed to perform this
function”)).
As long as the jury is presented with sufficient evidence to
discount any future damages, an expert is not required.
See Barrocco, 2003 WL 21406179, at *5 (plaintiff provided jury
with plaintiff's age, income, work expectancy, life expectancy as
5
R. Doc. 101-1 at 1.
2
well as the Consumer Price Index and treasury bill rates). The
jury will be instructed on their obligation to discount any
future damage awards. See Fifth Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions
(Civil) § 4.12 (2006 ed.) (“[I]f you decide to award plaintiff an
amount for lost earnings, you must discount it to present value
by considering what return would be realized on a relatively risk
free investment.”); see also Monessen Southwestern Railway Co. v.
Morgan, 486 U.S. 330, 341 (1988) (“[T]he present value
calculation is to be made by the ‘trier of fact.’”); Masinter v.
Tenneco Oil Co., 929 F.2d 191, 195 (5th Cir. 1991) (reiterating
that in Culver II the court had not mandated any specific
discount rate but rather had “explained that parties may
introduce expert opinion concerning the appropriate [discount]
rate”). Accordingly, defendant's motion to exclude evidence of
the plaintiff's future damages is denied.
III. CONCLUSION
For the above stated reasons, defendant's motion is denied.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 12th day of August, 2013.
__
_________________________________
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?