## Facts

- James Earl worked for many years as a tugboat deckhand and was near the end of his working life.
- In 1984, while employed by Bouchard Transportation Company, Inc., and connected with the tug *Marion C. Bouchard*, Earl was hurt in two separate workplace accidents, injuring his elbow and ankle.
- Earl stopped working on May 16, 1985, about one month before turning 62, and claimed the accidents forced him to retire earlier than he otherwise would have.
- Earl sued under the Jones Act and general maritime law, seeking damages that included loss of future earning capacity.
- At trial, Earl testified that absent the injuries he planned to keep working as he had been until age 65.
- The defendants presented evidence that Earl intended to retire in June 1985, when he turned 62, regardless of the accidents.
- Statistical proof was also introduced indicating that an average 62-year-old man could be expected to work until about age 67.
- In closing argument, Earl’s counsel asked the jury to calculate future-earnings damages using a retirement age of either 65 or 67.
- After a three-day trial, the jury found the defendants negligent and awarded Earl $855,000 in total damages, including $425,000 attributed to loss of future earnings tied to the second accident.
- The defendants moved for a new trial or, alternatively, remittitur, arguing that the future-earnings component was excessive because it implied a work-life to at least age 70 or else a wage increase not supported by the record.

## Issues

1. Whether the jury’s $425,000 award for loss of future earnings was excessive and unsupported by the evidence about Earl’s likely work-life expectancy and earning history.
2. Whether the proper remedy, if the award was excessive, was a new trial or a remittitur reducing the judgment to a supportable amount.
3. Whether, as a matter of law, an older seaman’s earning-capacity damages may extend beyond customary retirement age.

## Decision

- The court denied the defendants’ request for a new trial on liability, finding the case presented factual disputes appropriate for the jury.
- The court recognized there was some evidence from which a jury could find that, absent the accidents, Earl could and would have worked past age 62.
- The court held, however, that the size of the $425,000 future-earnings award could not be reconciled with the proof and reflected assumptions the record did not justify.
- The court ordered a remittitur reducing the damages in lieu of a new trial on damages, allowing the plaintiff to accept the reduced amount or face a new trial limited to damages.
- In addressing the damages framework, the court stated that impairment of earning capacity may be valued beyond normal retirement ages because the capacity to work can have economic value late in life, but any award must still reflect evidence and realistic expectations about what the labor market would likely pay for that work.

## Legal Principles

- Under the Jones Act and general maritime law, a plaintiff may recover for diminished earning capacity, not merely for wages actually lost, and the award must be tied to evidence rather than speculation.
- Earning capacity can, as a matter of law, have value beyond customary retirement age; damages may consider the remaining, declining ability to work over the person’s expected lifespan.
- Work-life expectancy tables and similar statistics may assist the factfinder, but they do not control; individualized evidence such as the plaintiff’s intentions, health, job history, and wages remains central.
- Even when some future-earnings loss is supported, the amount must match the evidentiary record; a court may intervene when a verdict implies implausible work-life assumptions or unsupported wage growth.
- When the error concerns the size of damages rather than the liability finding, remittitur is an appropriate remedy under Rule 59 practice: the plaintiff may accept a reduced award or proceed to a new trial on damages.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the jury’s negligence finding but required a remittitur because the $425,000 future-earnings award implied a work-life or wage trajectory not supported by trial evidence; at the same time, the court confirmed that an older seaman may recover for loss of earning capacity beyond typical retirement age so long as the amount reflects realistic, record-based assumptions.


Earl v. Bouchard Transportation Company, Inc., 735 F. Supp. 1167 (1990)