Lowe v. United States

662 F. Supp. 1089, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4353
CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Arkansas
DecidedMarch 16, 1987
Docket77-1008, 77-1031 to 77-1034
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 662 F. Supp. 1089 (Lowe v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lowe v. United States, 662 F. Supp. 1089, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4353 (W.D. Ark. 1987).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

OREN HARRIS, District Judge.

This consolidated matter came to be heard before the Court commencing February 2, 1987, on the issue of damages. 1 The procedural and appellate history are well documented throughout the eleven years since the accident which occurred March 8, 1976, from which these actions arise. Therefore, the Court shall not undertake to restate that history.

The damages phase of this bifurcated matter was tried to the Court, without the intercession of a jury. It was tried to a completion in three days. Thereupon, the matter was taken under advisement with the parties given the opportunity to file post trial briefs. The briefs having been received, the matter is ready for a decision. The Court incorporates herein findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Rule 52, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

*1093 At the outset of the trial on damages, it was announced that certain the plaintiffs represented by the McMath law firm had reached a Stipulation with the government as to amount of damages sustained by those plaintiffs. These plaintiffs are Carl McMichael, administrator of the estate of Emma McMichael, deceased, Mrs. Lamar Bartlett, Edna Rogers, Flora Weaver, Georgia Ray and Billy Harrison, administrator of the estate of Elsie Marie Harrison, deceased, case numbers 77-1006, 77-1008, 78-1006, excluding the claim of Winfred Lowe, administrator of the estate of Thelma Lowe, deceased. The sum of the Stipulation and the terms thereof are set out specifically in Joint Exhibit 1, introduced at trial. 2 Therefore, the Court concludes that a Judgment should be entered for each of these named plaintiffs and against the United States in the amounts as reflected by the Stipulation.

In regard to the McMath plaintiffs, there was an issue raised by an earlier Motion for Summary Judgment, and later raised in plaintiffs pretrial submission, regarding the timeliness of the filing of the intervention complaint by Insurance Company of North America. Although the Court has heretofore denied plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment, plaintiffs revived the issue. Upon conclusion of the hearing in this matter, the Court announced that it would withhold a ruling on the intervention issue pending a ruling in the damages phase of this ongoing litigation.

Subsequent to the hearing, the McMath plaintiffs, the Whetstone plaintiffs and Insurance Company of North America reached an agreement as to the amount of the subrogation claims, as evidenced by the Stipulation filed February 18, 1987. In that Stipulation, the respective rights of all parties are laid to rest; at least the parties have agreed to “go in peace”. The Court incorporates the terms and conditions of that Stipulation as if recited word for word herein.

Turning to the individual claims, the Court will address each of the five remaining cases separately. The first of such cases, Lowe, Administrator of the Estate of Thelma Lowe, deceased, involves injuries suffered in the explosion only. The remaining four cases, Kelly, Madison, Moody and Mitchell are wrongful death cases. In each case the plaintiffs seek to recover substantial damages from the government. The elements of damage that the parties seek to recover include compensatory damages, pecuniary injuries, mental anguish, conscious pain and suffering, loss of services and loss of consortium.

LOWE ESTATE

In the matter of Winfred Lowe, administrator of the estate of Thelma Lowe, deceased, it should be first noted that, during the pendency of this action, Mrs. Lowe died subsequent to the accident from a nonrelated illness, “multiple myeloma”, a form of bone cancer. The action was initially brought by Mrs. Lowe. Upon her death her estate, by and through Winfred Lowe, administrator, was substituted as the proper party plaintiff under Arkansas law. See Ark.Stat.Ann. 27-901.

At the time of the accident, Mrs. Lowe was 49 years old. 3 She had returned from lunch to her assigned work station in Building M-35 when the explosion occurred. *1094 She was knocked unconscious by the blast. She was transferred to Ouachita Hospital in Camden, Arkansas by ambulance, where she was admitted at 1:30 p.m. The injuries sustained were diagnosed as a fracture of the left humerus, a fracture of the left ankle, multiple fractures to the left ribs, multiple lacerations and abrasions to the left forearm and injuries to both ear drums.

In his deposition, Dr. James Guthrie of Camden, the treating physician, stated that Mrs. Lowe was conscious when she arrived at the hospital. He outlined the course of repair and treatment of the injuries sustained. Mrs. Lowe was fitted with a “long leg” walking cast and a “Caldwell” cast on the left arm. She was discharged from Ouachita Hospital on March 24, 1986, with a potential to recover well. However, Mrs. Lowe began to suffer lower back pain some after discharge.

On July 26, 1976, Mrs. Lowe was examined by Dr. Earnest Hartmann, an orthopedic surgeon in El Dorado. His examination revealed a compression fracture of the lumbar spine. She was fitted with a lumbo-sacral support at that time.

Mrs. Lowe was later diagnosed as having post-menopausal osteoporosis, with such condition having pre-dated the injury. It was the opinion of Dr. Guthrie and Dr. Austin Grimes, an orthopedic surgeon, that the injuries resulting from the explosion aggravated this preexisting condition. The severity of the osteoporosis was enhanced by Mrs. Lowe’s decreased physical activity following the accident. Although Dr. Guthrie testified that Mrs. Lowe did not recover as well as he had expected, he stated that she should have been able to return to work on January 1, 1977.

The myeloma was suspected in June 1979, with such diagnosis being confined in July 1979. Dr. Grimes testified by deposition that the myeloma was probably not advanced to such a level as to have had an impact upon the initial injuries. It is not contended that the injuries suffered in the blast were a proximate cause of Mrs. Lowe’s death.

The estate established that Mrs. Lowe would have worked 299 days in 1976 but for the injuries. She was earning $2.94 per hour at the time, working a forty hour week. Based upon mathematic computation, her lost earnings total $5,009.00. The government concedes that such amount is a proper measure of lost earnings. The estate established that she incurred medical expenses totaling $4,514.57 as a result of the injuries. The government concedes that this measure of medical expenses is correct and a proper measure of damages. Therefore, the estate is entitled to Judgment in the amount of $9,523.57 for these damages.

Additionally, the Court finds that an award of money damages for pain and suffering is appropriate under the facts of this case. Mrs. Lowe suffered severe, debilitating injuries. Her usual activities became impossibilities. The analysis of this element of damage is complicated somewhat by the onset of the myeloma.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Williams v. United States
660 F. Supp. 699 (E.D. Arkansas, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
662 F. Supp. 1089, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4353, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lowe-v-united-states-arwd-1987.