Martin Ex Rel. Martin v. United States

471 F. Supp. 6, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12519
CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedMay 8, 1979
DocketCiv-77-363-PHX-CAM
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 471 F. Supp. 6 (Martin Ex Rel. Martin v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Martin Ex Rel. Martin v. United States, 471 F. Supp. 6, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12519 (D. Ariz. 1979).

Opinion

OPINION

JAMES M. BURNS, District Judge:

This is a Federal Tort Claims case, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346, 2674, tried in the District of Arizona while I was sitting there, by assignment, in February. On February 14, 1979, by oral opinion, I found in favor of plaintiffs on the issue of the government’s negligence; in addition, I found against the government on the issue of contributory negligence. Liability having been established, I requested the parties to submit post-trial memoranda concerning damages, so as to permit me to decide the damage issue upon my return to the District of Oregon.

The facts of this near-fatal accident are simple. Plaintiffs, each a grade school youngster, were riding home from school on a motorbike at about 6:00 P.M. on September 21,1977, when they struck a sagging or “down” power line negligently maintained by the government. Plaintiff Jeffrey Martin was operating, and Plaintiff Melvin Burrows was a rear passenger on the bike. *8 Each suffered tragically severe and permanent injuries. 1 The damage elements are:

1) Past medical expenses, which are agreed;
2) Future medical expenses, also agreed, save for minor aspects;
3) Present value of lost future earning capacity;
4) Pain and suffering, and interference with normal and usual activities.

I. MELVIN E. BURROWS II.

Plaintiff Melvin E. Burrows II sustained severe burns to his face, head, back, buttocks, arms and legs.

A. Past Medical Expenses

This plaintiff has submitted uncontested documentation of past medical expenses totalling $48,130.97.

B. Future Medical Expenses

This plaintiff originally sought an award of $55,000 for future medical expenses based upon the testimony of Dr. Alan Sacks that each of 11 further contemplated plastic surgeries will cost about $3,000; that the operations should be performed at intervals of approximately six months; that hospital costs have doubled over the past five years; and that future cost increases will be about 12-15% per year. The defendant objected to plaintiff’s suggestion that I take judicial notice of the asserted rate of inflation in hospital costs. Defendant also noted that the award could be immediately invested by the plaintiff to generate a return that would at least partially offset future medical care cost inflation. Following my letter of March 20, 1979, to the parties seeking clarification of this matter, the parties agreed to entry of an award for future medical expenses of $48,629. In addition, I award $5,000 for psychological treatments to accompany Melvin’s additional surgeries, as recommended by Dr. Aaron Canter, a clinical psychologist who treated Melvin during and after his stay at the Maricopa County Hospital.

C. Loss of Earning Capacity

1. Probable Earning Capacity Absent the Accident

Clarence Martin is principal of the Florence middle school, owner of a roofing business that employs Melvin Burrows’ father, and uncle of the other plaintiff in this case. He testified upon the basis of his observation of Melvin during the seven years he has known him and the month and a half that Melvin had attended the middle school prior to the accident. He believed that Melvin was average or above average in intelligence and probably would have become a skilled worker, perhaps a mechanic or a carpenter. Dr. Glenn Wilt, an associate professor of finance at Arizona State University and an investment counselor, stated:

[I]t can be reasonably presumed that, but for their injuries, both Melvin and Jeffrey would have gravitated into positions in one of the construction trades. Clearly, that is exactly what most of their uninjured classmates will do, and considering the general demand in this territory, due to the growth of population and need for attendant services in the construction field, a strong demand can be forecast for these jobs. Ex. 51B at 2.

Based upon my evaluation of the testimony and the expertise and credibility of the witnesses, I conclude that Melvin Burrows probably would have become a skilled worker. Dr. Wilt stated that a carpenter would, at 1978 wage rates, earn about $9,450 per year during a four-year apprenticeship and during a subsequent 42-year career as a journeyman carpenter would earn about $18,900 annually in wages and $3,900 annually in fringe benefits. I accept these figures as reasonable approximations of Melvin’s lifetime earnings had he not experienced this accident.

2. Probable Earning Capacity

Dr. Guinourd testified that Melvin might be employable as a night watchman or night diesel mechanic not involved with the public interaction aspect of either business. Dr. Wilt concluded that, because of Melvin’s disfigurement and intolerance to sunlight and perspiration, he would probably be unable to find a job suited to his handicap. Dr. Canter testified that Melvin would benefit psychologically from working even at a lowly position.

Based upon the testimony and my own observation of Melvin Burrows, I conclude that he probably will be able to work at an entry-level position for at least half of his normal working life. According to Dr. Wilt, such work would generate an annual income of $3,120 in 1978 dollars. Thus, Melvin is entitled to recover in 1978 dollars $6,330 per year for four years (apprenticeship period), then $19,680 per year for the following 42 years (journeyman period).

3. Inflation Rate and Return on Invest ment 3

Dr. Wilt testified that it is reasonable to expect an annual wage inflation rate of 7% *10 over Melvin’s working lifetime and that a sum of money in the hundreds of thousands of dollars could earn 7% annually in relatively riskless investments. Dr. Buehler, on the other hand, stated that wages should be expected to increase only 5.5% annually over this period and that the award could presently be invested with essentially no risk yet earn more than 9% annually.

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

Related

Weinstein v. Islamic Republic of Iran
184 F. Supp. 2d 13 (District of Columbia, 2002)
Smith v. Superior Court
831 P.2d 1279 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1992)
Harris v. Day
451 N.E.2d 262 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
471 F. Supp. 6, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12519, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-ex-rel-martin-v-united-states-azd-1979.