Opinion
Civil Action No. 01-2766 Section: "K" (2)
November 12, 2002
ORDER AND REASON
The defendant, Noble Drilling, brings before this Court a Motion to Adjust the Damage Award rendered in the above captioned two-day jury trial which took place on October 7, 2002.
The plaintiff, Randall Cunningham, a seaman, was allegedly injured while working on defendant's rig on or about November 12, 2000 and on or about November 25, 2000. In the first incident, the plaintiff claimed that he injured himself when a heavy bottle fell on his shoulder. In the second incident, the plaintiff claimed to have injured himself or aggravated the first injury by "pulling slips" when he was aboard the rig. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant's negligence and the unseaworthy conditions on the vessel were the causes of his injuries. Plaintiff also claimed maintenance and cure. The defendant, Noble Drilling, maintained that it was not negligent and that the vessel was not unseaworthy. Additionally, defendant alleged that Mr. Cunningham was not aboard the ship on the date of the first accident.
At the conclusion of the trial, the jury awarded the plaintiff $150,000 in actual damages, but found the plaintiff, Mr. Cunningham, 75% at fault. The jury awarded the plaintiff $25,000 in past lost income and did not make an award for maintenance. In advance of trial, the parties stipulated that Noble had paid $8,119.56 in maintenance and $9,120.32 in supplemental wages and/or advances. (Rec. Doc. 88).
In its motion, Noble argues that because the parties stipulated to the amount of maintenance and supplemental wages and/or advances, the Court should deduct the sum of these payments, $17,239.88, from the total award for past lost income.
The Court determined this figure by adding supplemental wages and/or advances $9,120.32, to the maintenance paid, $8,119.56.
Offset of Supplemental Wages and/or Advances
As to the amount of wages advanced, Noble argues that it offered these supplemental wages in satisfaction of any claim against it for wages. Noble adds that the jury was not instructed to deduct the $9,120.32 from the award of past lost income, therefore if the court does not adjust the past income award, the plaintiff will receive a windfall. It urges the Court to reduce the past lost income award by the amount of the supplemental wages that Noble has paid.
To the contrary, Mr. Cunningham argues that the past income award should not be reduced by this amount because the payment was gratuitous. Cunningham argues that since Noble had no legal obligation to pay the advance, this amount cannot be offset against the jury award for past lost income.
The cases Mr. Cunningham cites are inapplicable because they involve facts that are considerably different than those in the instant case. In Durgin v. Crescent Towing Salvage, Inc., 2002 WL 21365365 *3 (E.D.La.), the court considered payment of wages in the context of whether the court should require an innocent shipowner to be indemnified by a third-party tortfeasor. In Wisconsin Barge Line, Inc., 546 F.2d 1125 (5th Cir. 1977), the court considered whether indemnity is available after a settlement judgment.
The Court agrees with Noble; the parties intended the stipulated amount of past lost wages to be an advance on any claim for wages. Nothing in the record supports the plaintiffs contention that the payment of supplemental wages and/or advances wad gratuitous. Additionally, the Court must avoid an enhanced award that may result as due to the fact that the plaintiff specifically requested that the Court, rather than the jury, calculate the damage award using the stipulations. Because the Court did not instruct the jury to account for the payment of supplemental wages and/advances, the jury made a finding of total past lost income. Had the Court intended for the jury to deduct the advances from the award for past lost income, the instructions and interrogatories would have requested the jury to subtract from any award of past wage loss, the amount paid by defendant as advances. Accordingly, the Court finds that the amount of the stipulation should offset the award for past lost income.
Offset of maintenance paid
Noble also contends that the Court should offset the stipulated $8,119.56 in maintenance payments against the award for past lost income. Noble argues that the plaintiff cannot recover maintenance plus wages for the identical period of time.
Unlike the payments of advances and/or supplemental income, the Court does not find that the award of maintenance in addition to past income duplicative of the jury's award for past loss of income. See Coburn v. Bunge Towing, Inc., 883 F.2d 372, 378 (5th Cir. 1989); see also Phillips v. Western Company of North America, 953 F.2d 923, 929 (5th Cir. 1992). "Maintenance is the equivalent of the food and lodging to which a seaman is entitled while at sea . . . [and] is neither a substitute for wages nor is it to be considered in lieu of wages in whole or in part." Id. (quoting Morel v. Sabine Towing Trans. Co., 669 F.2d 345 (5th Cir. 1982); see also Ceja v. Mike Hooks, Inc., 690 F.2d 1191, 1197 (5th Cir. 1982). In Ceja v. Mike Hooks Inc., 690 F.2d 1191, 1197 (5th Cir. 1982), the court considered whether it was an error for the district court to offset award of past lost wages with the amount of maintenance paid. Id. The court noted that "absent an explicit contractual provision specifying that . . . wages [are] to be deemed a substitute for maintenance, there is no basis for crediting such earned wages against the vessel owner's maintenance obligation." Id.
The case that the defendant cites, Blanchard v. Cheramie, 485 F.2d 328, (5th Cir. 1973), does not alter the Court's assessment that an award for maintenance and past-income is proper. In Blanchard, the court dealt with whether a jury award for past lost income constitutes double recovery if the jury also awards maintenance. In the instant case, the jury only awarded past-income and there was no maintenance award. The issue in this case is whether once maintenance is paid, prior to litigation, the defendant is entitled to an offset from the jury award of past income. To this query and in light of the cases discussed above, the Court finds that the defendant is not entitled to offset the paid maintenance from the past-income award. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the damage award shall be reduced by $9,120.32, the stipulated amount of advances/supplemental wages. Consequently, the revised award for past lost income, as offset by the payments of advances in the amount of $9,120.32, is 15,879.68.