Ball v. DELTA MARINE DRILLING COMPANY, 72-2655.
| Decision Date | 11 April 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 72-2655.,72-2655. |
| Citation | 476 F.2d 287 |
| Parties | Travis Lloyd BALL, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DELTA MARINE DRILLING COMPANY et al., Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Lawrence J. Ernst, New Orleans, La., for Delta Marine and Fidelity & Cas. Co.
Patrick E. Jones, Metairie, La., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before TUTTLE, THORNBERRY and DYER, Circuit Judges.
We have carefully considered the grounds for appeal and with a single exception find them to be without merit. We conclude that the verdict and judgment as to liability for Ball's injury must be sustained.
The one error which we find occurred relates to the refusal of the trial court to instruct the jury that any award made for future loss of earnings should be discounted to present values where the defendant specifically requested such a change.
Travelers Insurance Company v. Garfield Hurst, 343 F.2d 160 (5th Cir., 1965) clearly implies that such a charge, if requested, should be given. The court there stated:
343 F.2d at 161.
See also United States v. Varner, 400 F. 2d 369, 373 (5th Cir., 1968).
Here the request was duly made, and on failure of the court to give it, the court stated: "Mr. Reporter, put in the record . . . give the defendant an exception to all written charges . . . requested by the defendant which were refused." This obviated the necessity for counsel to renew his objection at the close of the charge.
We conclude that the error was substantial and prejudicial to the defendant and conclude that therefore the verdict for damages cannot stand.
The case is remanded to the trial court for the purpose of submitting only the question of damages to the jury under proper instructions.
The judgment is vacated and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Vacated and remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ivy v. Security Barge Lines, Inc.
...court to instruct the jury to discount the award to present value had such instruction been timely requested. Ball v. Delta Marine Drilling Co., 5 Cir. 1973, 476 F.2d 287. Trial judges, however, are not black-robed computers, equipped to spew forth jury charges on every point of law at the ......
-
Shirkey v. Eli Lilly & Co.
...about the preservation of objections. See Stewart v. Ford Motor Co., 553 F.2d 130, 139-40, (D.C. Cir.1977); Ball v. Delta Marine Drilling Co., 476 F.2d 287, 288 (5th Cir.1973); see also Irvin Jacobs & Co. v. Fidelity & Deposit Co., 202 F.2d 794, 800-01 (7th Turning to the merits of Shirkey'......
-
Metz v. United Technologies Corp.
...calculations mathematically inaccurate and constitutes substantial and prejudicial error to the defendant. 2 See Ball v. Delta Marine Drilling Co., 476 F.2d 287 (5th Cir.1973) (failure to instruct jury on present value held to be reversible Plaintiff's reliance on cases in which a so-called......
-
Peters v. T.G. & Y. Stores Co.
...court would find the failure to grant an instruction on discounting, on request, to constitute reversible error. Cf. Ball v. Delta Marine Co., 5 Cir.1973, 476 F.2d 287, 288. If the plaintiff's total claimed damages based on future earnings--estimated as between $60,000 and $250,000, dependi......