*2 RIVES, Before GOLDBERG and Judges. GODBOLD, PER CURIAM: personal in This is an action general juries under maritime law Act, 46 U.S.C. § the Jones help coil cable stack a inch drill- %o motorman on a awas op- as a This line had known sand-line. Rig owned No. on crew previously developed a kink by defendant-appellant. At erated Rig injury, No. 21 out drum let in order time of straighten Immediately drilling barge prior bot- it. was a submersible naviga- signal Bay Corpus accident a Christi blown tomed in coiling drilling oper- engaged summon the men sand-line ble waters adding rig to the floor *3 found of the to aid The district ations. pipe Rig the another the within section of drill to 21 a "vessel” No. was general meaning maritime law drill stem. As the walk- men started the finding driller, M. cannot toward floor L. the the and the Jones Act. That drum, disengaged Shaw, clearly or as erroneous the sand-line as be set aside engaged in to Texas the contrary to v. master clutch order law. Gianfala 879, works, applied 1955, the Company, 76 S.Ct. kick in 350 draw and U.S. power 141, 775, rev’g power ap- 382 drum. to the As was L.Ed. 1955); Company plied, suddenly v. en- Offshore the sand-line drum Cir. 769; gaged began Robison, 1959, rapidly Pro and in to take 266 F.2d 1966, by Drilling Gray, the cable that had v. been coiled ducers Co. plaintiff 432; Drill- was and others. Chenevert v. Clinch caught by E.D.La.1967, upward ing Co., F.Supp. 943. the cable and lifted rig agree appellant that into the the not the framework We do thirty drop- Rodrigue forty some or feet before the v. Aetna cases recent ping rig result Co., onto floor. As a Casualty Surety 1969, the U.S. & plaintiff injured 352, 360, 1835, and sustained was 23 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. damages. Johnson, Operating certain Nacirema 24 L. 396 U.S. 90 S.Ct. prior ac- the shift to the "On work present impair Ed.2d the tightened the driller the cident had those decisions. it been sand-line clutch because had general included Plaintiff’s duties Although slipping. reported he this engines and and care the maintenance report, operations in in- the he did not during drilling generators operations, form Shaw of this and Shaw did vessel, chipping painting operations report check the before moving aiding in from vessel going ac- to At time of the work. drilling port Corpus Christi to the near to sand- cident control lever did not live site. He on vessel ‘disengaged’ or in line drum was performed it aboard all his work was However, position. neutral accomplishment prima- in of the vessel’s engaged Shaw the master clutch drilling rig. ry dis- a The function as drilling applied power cable “sea- he was a trict found that engaged. also drum the sand-line drum might prop- man” aboard the vessel and to the sand-line clutch was due general erly pursue this action under tight prevent to it from so as That Act. maritime law and Jones disengaging lever when the control clearly test under the correct placed position. was in the neutral Company Ro- in articulated Offshore spite slowly en- if had Shaw supra, bison, 266 F.2d at proper gaged clutch in the the master power applying he manner before evidence the sand-line in- have that plaintiff's would seen court found the manner of engaged. jury The drum evidence was still as follows: not uncommon indicates that was September plaintiff “On en- clutch to remain for the sand-line Rig injured working aboard while was gaskets gaged air-release if the injury he At the time dirty damp if the valve became completed normal had his duties tight.” assigned clutch was too motorman and had been physical capacity, found that The district court loss of than negli prior wages, was his driller on the shift will gent failing in probability that to inform Shaw all reasonable medical tightened continue his had the clutch end of life. he neg drum, was sand-line and that Shaw “The reasonable cash value by failing ligent fact that discover compensable damages of all sustained inspecting report, operations by plaintiff proximate as a direct and grad negligent failing was further injuries $66,000.00 cause of his ually engage clutch order master judg- is entitled to recover if to determine drum sand-line against ment in that amount defend- properly disengaged, and that each ant.” negligence proximate these acts appellant complains the court injuries cause of dam entered lump for a with- sum ages. sup amply Those allocating damages out to the various el- ported clear the evidence and are not ements which the court considered. We *4 true, ly the erroneous. That requiring are cited to no law such al- holding court’s further that the condi location, opinon and our is a that tion of the clutch mechanism rendered matter the within of the dis- discretion unseaworthy the vessel was not essential appellant trict The court. that insists decision, to the we of the and damages the award of for of “a loss need not determine the vessel whether physical capacity capacity other than his navigation” “in was the use of within wages” recovery. to earn allows a double warranty making of that term in the On motion for new trial the district Rogers applicable. See seaworthiness recovery court found that no double was E.D.La.1968, Ralph Bollinger, M/V plaintiff, awarded that the ele- various F.Supp. cited. and cases there compensable damage sepa- ments of are distinct, rate The and district found the that each is court that element negli- supported by evidence, plaintiff contributorily the not that the was and gent clearly erro- and not defendant’s dissatisfaction the that findings form of neous. the and did conclusions require assign specific not the court to damages The district court awarded damage. to dollar values each element of $66,000.00 of total damages We cannot hold the award against $1,610.00 it which credited clearly erroneous nor of the the denial paid plaintiff which had in com- been motion for new discre- trial an abuse of pensation. appellant The that insists judgement tion. The the court awarded excessive Affirmed. recovery. and allowed a double years age the at the time of ON PETITION FOR REHEARING injuries head, accident. to his His were right right leg. ear, back and There RIVES, Before and GOLDBERG injuries plain- was evidence that to GODBOLD, Judges. perma- tiff’s ear to his back were nent. district that The court found PER CURIAM: wages earnings had lost ca- original opinion Court not- pacity probably which will extend to the complaint ed Diamond’s that the district life; end his he had that suffered entering court erred in for physical pain anguish mental lump allocating a specific sum without probably will to continue so to suffer amounts to the various elements Finally the end of life. his district Specifically, the court considered. Dia- court that: found objects finding that, mond to the court’s proximate “As proximate a direct and result “As a direct result of injury plaintiff injury plaintiff
of his
a
has suffered
his
a
has suffered
loss
distinguishable
these decisions
capacity,
than his
physical
other
they
also remanded
that
were
will in
wages, which
capacity
earn
to
remaining
liability,2
question
probability con-
medical
reasonable
all
ques-
the sole
remanded on
cases were
his
life.”
to
end
tinue
damage
specificity of
award.
tion
loss of
for “a
award of
The
cases,
above
contrast
his
capacity other than
physical
that,
the circum-
held
under
cases have
insists,
wages,”
allows
Diamond
findings
stances,
remand
overlaps
recovery
in that
it
a double
necessary.3
damage award
wages
lost
award
“special
which al-
The
circumstances”
earning capacity
and/or
necessity
remand
leviated
were:
anguish.
physical pain
mental
future
findings
(1)
of the district
objects
also
Diamond
review;4
purposes
in that:
court’s
(2)
objection
no
was raised at
or doubt
findings that
would suf-
(1)
Neill
In its
appellate
level as to the excessiveness
earning
wages
capac-
future
fer
award;
composition
lump
sum
or
actual
ity,
not consider
did
(3)
exception
no
was made at
earning capacity but calculated
trial
form of
district
as to the
court’s
engage
inability
in oilfield
on Neill’s
findings.6
speci-
work;
in not
court erred
From
contrast between
fying
percentage
to re-
of discount
cases,
groups
above two
seems clear
earnings
value.
duce future
examining
appellate
courts,
*5
contends,
errors,
can-
damage award,
Diamond
“lump
These
sum”
should
by this Court
adequately reviewed
per
not be
adopt
se rule
that all eases must
specifies the ex-
until
compliance
be remanded for
with Rule
of dam-
each element
52(a).
act amount
for
an award
While
of
comput-
ages
basis
and the factual
specification
particular
of
elements
ing each
they
amount.
each and
amounts
how
computed
purposes
were
desirable
52(a),
of Rule
Fed.R.Civ.
basis
review,7
appellate
review of
P.,
have remanded
numerous courts
accomplished
an award
often
can
be
even
specify
district
direction that
though
“lump
the award is
sum”
separately
findings
form.
further
A remand
items
for each
several
awarded
52(a)
necessary only
under Rule
Although
several
held recoverable.1
States,
917,
3. Pritchett v. United
Nash-Kelvinator
injured party over-compensated for wages). case, present upon
In the recon sideration, we have decided remand findings light for additional SMITH, J. Russell Plaintiff-Appellant, objections certain raised Diamond to of fact conclu BOARD REGENTS, OF STATE SENIOR objections sions of law. These are: *6 COLLEGES, Defendant-Appellee. appears awarding damages It wages earning lost capacity, earning court did not consider actual Appeals, United States Court of capacity damages calculated Fifth Circuit. inability engage Neill’s work oilfield May (and particu thus that for this excessive); (2)
lar element are physical award “loss capacity capacity other than his earn wages” overlaps for lost
wages earning capacity and/or physical pain and future and mental anguish. Further to enable objections Court review these (1) would include: factors considered awarding damages wages earning capacity, (2) wages earning for lost ca (3)
pacity, factors considered and the injury physical nature “loss capacity than
wages,” the amount of
for this element.