National Airlines, Inc. v. Beryl Whiteman Stiles, Beryl Whiteman Stiles v. National Airlines, Inc.
268 F.2d 400
5th Cir.
1959
Check Treatment

*1 400 opinion its court, that are of the

bama we AIRLINES, INC., Appellant, NATIONAL failure from court’s decision resulted recognize Lord v. FELA was that the type and from Campbell Beryl STILES, Appellee. Act of statute Whiteman the Su belief mistaken the court’s that Beryl STILES, Appellant, Whiteman FELA preme had construed the Court v. v.Co. & N. R. in Louisville otherwise AIRLINES, INC., Appellee. NATIONAL 586, 261, L. Stewart, 36 S.Ct. 241 U.S. No. 17587. that 989, stated Ed. the Court when jury Appeals court’s instruction trial United States Court of fairly Fifth Circuit. will “such sum could award was compensate 12, death” for his his estate June 1959. forgetfulness “given, seem, in would act under arose case 262, 36 Congress.” page at Supreme page S. What Ct. at 588. not that Campbell meant was there

Court Lord

FELA was unlike the type of death statute but Act wrongful type of the unusual unlike Kentucky, force in statute court where

sitting. Kentucky’s is one statute American death number

the small as Lord classified not

statutes which are they pro because Campbell Act statutes recovery, benefit for the not

vide for family, for the but of the deceased’s nothing There is of his estate.7 benefit suggesting opinion in damages Court’s FELA under the

recoverable under other those recoverable differ type Campbell Act statutes.

Lord of the district is remanded the case

reversed consideration further

the court’s opinion. Cameron, Judge, with Circuit dissented. consistent Vreeland, damages Michigan Co. v. Cent. another element to the add 6. 192, 69-71, might L.Ed. S.Ct. the decedent himself claim which U.S. pertinent injuries (The sections text recovered for his had he have English original Torelfo, supra. Kling statute are set Since lived. v. page (i. e„ by 227 U.S. at him in footnote suffered forth 195). page estate) be measured his loss of will income, future some elements of Torello, Kling 87 Conn. See compensation recovered his distribu- L.R.A.,N.S., Tiffany, 987, 46 A. type may under this of statute tees cor- Act, Wrongful (2d ed. Death portion respond to a Sutherland, Damages, 1913); § 1277 people might which the same receive 1916). (4th ed. compensation for their type purpose of this other of stat- type statute, the other even create a new -not to cause of ute is ac- theory though the of dam- measure (for family) the decedent’s ages be different would in the two cases. upon death, the decedent’s but to arises *2 DeJarnette, Dixon, Reid H. DeJar- Williams,

nette, Miami, Fla., & Bradford 761,1 Jr., to cover Porteous, & C.A. which has been held Porteous William A. resulting La., Orleans, H. death air accidents over Johnson, John New high Trihey George Tompkins, seas, Air Transocean Montgomery, Jr., N. City, Lines, Cir., *3 Forsyth, 824. It will York Jr., New & Condon recovery in such a case respondent-appellant. noted that the expressed for just compensa “a fair and as Jr., P. Himel, Eberhard René H. loss sustained.” for the Kerrigan, New Emmett Deutsch Orleans, and 46 U.S.C.A. 762.2 libelant-appellant, La., for presented Kerrigan Stiles, H. issues Deutsch, René There distinct & are two appeal. (1) La., Orleans, Did the trial court Himel, Jr., of counsel. on this New awarding the err as a of law in matter TUTTLE, and CAMERON Before judgment $250,000, the of either because Judges. WISDOM, Circuit largely undisputed testimony demanded larger (2) a award? either smaller or Judge. TUTTLE, Circuit legally permissible for trial Was it the by Airlines appeal National This is an run court to an award of interest to make judgment Mrs. Stiles from a and date between the date death the of plus $250,000 interest the sum judgment? in an death husband’s the airplane date of affirm We trial on the court’s being a as excessive crash both counts. The trial court considered by appeal the law, cross matter question entirely depo- the on ground record facts that the wife on the Although objections sitions. numerous law, demanded, a substan- as a matter of were noted as to of certain the relevance tially greater judgment. evidence, passed by none was trial Harry New Stiles was a successful court on the trial and consider that we lawyer his Orleans whose income from question is no there before as to us the. averaged per $41,800 partnership law year propriety considering of the trial court’s his He lost the time death. probative all of the evidence which had appel- his life when an airliner of arriving value in at its decision. under circumstances lost lant’s fleet was question, the the first As to negligent. by the trial court to be held sharply dispute counsel’s drawn D.C., Airlines, Inc., See National Stiles v. respective The defendant contentions. holding F.Supp. lia- 125. The says clear was airline bility appealed. is not Mrs. her husband’s death at the time of death was At the of his Stiles time receiving actually in cash not was Stiles age. years expectancy had a life He use her own exclusive for dollar value or younger, years. His of 20.2 wife was year. (It per $7,246 makes more than longer expectancy. thus had a and she $6,746 computation of as an al different brought says figure.) if the The action It ternative High Act, 46 husband would re- Seas U.S. Death on the found court vessel, person, Right action; against where 761. “§ relative ent brought. corporation have been which would whom or not ensued.” had death liable if person of a shall death “Whenever apportionment by wrongful act, neglect, re- or de- be caused Amount “762. beyond high occurring covery. on the seas fault league recovery from the shore of in such suit shall be a a marine “The compensation pe- State, Columbia, just for or the District or fair persons dependencies cuniary Territories or sustained States, brought representa- the suit United whose benefit for may among apportioned them the decedent maintain tive of shall may they proportion to the loss for the district courts suit court severally States, admiralty, reason of the the United have suffered for repre- person whose benefit of the exclusive decedent’s brought.” husband, parent, child, depend- wife, suit is or sentative deprive rest Such gainfully employed contention would main right give any con- would court of effect expectancy and could community property annual to the laws same “to contribute tinue latter’s effect of Louisiana which have the defendant amount to the declaring added) half of benefit,” (emphasis hus- one sole belongs to a sum band’s current required income to the award limit the Pfaff, for wife. representing See Bender v. U.S. contribution this annual present cash S.Ct. years Succession 20.2 reduced Wiener, ex- says, figure, It could La. So.2d 475. value. This deprive figured rate $108,599.78 at a would also trial court ceed if 3% rate, if Mr. return, $99,131.65 consider that Stiles at a 4% *4 might creased his income he increase used. should be claims which it enjoy- personal pecuniary Stiles’s Mrs. says hand, plaintiff, other on the by ment in such increas- either increase a maximum that the record that is clear ing payments actually her, by made or average only spent $17,000 on the of expenditures by him for the bene- made expenses by for business the husband by fit of both or of excess accumulations leaving $24,800 items, expenditures. income over current It loss, her annual amount which would, deprive course, the trial court this share she should either because to consider such ac- that during would it him life or amount with cumulation, as to her one-half under both it on receive would accumulate she community property rules, and also of says, Thus, sum this his death. she might part well, ultimately in- be by multiplied and dis- 20.2 should be by herited the wife. present This cash value. at counted especially The airline criticizes the $347,000, produce us- computation would theory possibility of that the an inheri- ing $339,264, if discounted or rate a 3% by tance Mrs. accumula- Stiles further Stiles contended at Mrs. 4%. during period expectancy tions may of his (undisputed in opinion that the by be considered the trial court as practice law record) Mr. Stiles’s that determining pecuniary an element in averaged $70,000 per have would income Ordinarily loss sense, common sustained. lived, this would increase annum he had us, seems it would refute this legal cer- mathematical ato likely contention. It is as that a inwife tainty $622,685.3 circumstances, these who did fact Thus, claims that the defendant herit her husband’s estate entire on his wife “pecuniary untimely death, loss sustained” would continue to be earnings lawyer year object 51 whose old natural of his affection and benefi- averaged $41,800 and expectancy time if he lived cence out his years four of trial would have the date made substantial additional accumula- $70,000 give must later been excess as that he would tions continue to present cash support value her restricted to the kind of the defendant relatively which he small amount admits the court could assume would gave currently her as a cash allowance continue. No authoritative decision has sole benefit received her or our which she been called to attention and we have plus expenditures, and like for household found none that holds such considera- $3,500 inappropriate estimated half of an item tion quiry. such an in- spent her husband for their her clothing, We have held in decision an- today contributions miscellaneous nounced Martin v. Atlantic expenses. Co., Cir., 5 Coast Line 268 F.2d that to whatever sum also contended 3. She the “loss of Mr. Stiles’s care and advice.” entitled determined she was thus It so that on patent this record no legal of law to an additional $50,- a matter issue can be raised as to this sum representing value pecuniary it is not further referred to. case, seq., indicated, FELA, As et we have trial an 45 U.S.C.A. not, specific j'udgment, proper element did in its principle make that on this is mathematical court in calculations from which it to be considered trial possible assessing damages. Unit v. to ascertain which O’Toole Cf. weighed heavily circumstances States, Cir., most ed 308.4 its determination the amount. It is Having the likelihood determined required so, Robey not v. Sun Rec- do earnings, likelihood future Co., Cir., ord F.2d Mrs. part enjoyment of her wife’s larger request compute Stiles’s that we would them, that she likelihood j'udgment sum and not enter does own husband’s also have benefited powers Court, fall for- within the commu- of his half accumulations we, court, is the has nity during as his life income either perform. this function to See Sanders legatee properly before heir or were all Leech, Cir., F.2d 486. On think, court, we plain, it is we record before us the trial court could an award cannot hold on this record give weight thought appropri- such as it was, by law, $250,000 excessive. many ate to the it. circumstances before follow, however, that It does not *5 parties The motion below did not seek j'udgment particular of amount the parts to isolate those evidence Nor, forti a demanded the evidence. legally they which now insist not could larger sum ori, that can held be considered the court. impossible was, by law, is It demanded. repeat . We what we said in v. Sanders exactly arrived court how trial to tell the Leech, supra, page 488: at plain, figure It is it determined. at the “In is these circumstances it not could,consider, however, not but that it duty whether, our to if determine expectancy the by, of the bound life be decedent, triers, we were we would have of inter the rate as to same, awarded the arriving present applied for at est to greater, It our or a less amount. is value; possibility con of Mr. Stiles the duty only whether to determine we tinuing profession practice at an his to say can that amount awarded ascending financially, re or the scale inadequate was so that was clear- ample that, verse; possibility with ly erroneous, unj'ust. The that is appeared from other means evidence, evidence furnishes basis de- no for family his other than and no termination it was.” might an’ wife, to be content take he propriety early was also We turn next There to the retirement. allowing might of possibility out the court’s interest the wife not from the notwithstanding negligent husband, argu her date of the death. The her live younger age, right ment a new he would in fact runs: This is created by statute; will his sister statute does not in inheritance ex his leave elements, press provide charity. for All of terms allowance toor interest; they are, had the speculative the court hence interest cannot be 5 right allowed. consider. Holloway, 5. Sec the Death on Louisville & N. R. v. the FELA and Co. 4. Both Campbell 525, 528, 379, High 246 “Lord U.S. 38 Act are S.Ct. 62 L. Seas Co., 867; Towing Chesapeake Ry. Acts,” Ed. & v. Co. Van Beeck Sabine O. v. 454, Kelly, 485, 346, 452, 630, 342, 241 U.S. 57 81 36 S.Ct. S.Ct. 60 L. U.S. 300 subject 1117; 685, Ed. same Baltimore & and are Potomac R. Co. L.Ed. Mackey, 72, 93, damages. Michigan 491, v. 157 Cent. R. U.S. 15 S.Ct. measure 624; Vreeland, 59, Illinois v. Cent. R. Co. Co. v. 417; Barron, 106, 90, 90, 192, 106, 5 Wall. Middleton Luck 72 57 v. L.Ed. U.S. 591; Co., Cir., 326, Ry. 18 2 F.24 L.Ed. 70 cer Illinois Cent. S.S. Co. enbach v. Spence, Tenn. denied U.S. S.Ct. S.W. tiorari 79 L.Ed. 674. arriving plaintiff’s things plainly: value fair two states The statute length pecuniary fair loss “a time recovery be for (1) is The judgment may be tak- pecuniary date sometimes compensation just for the en determining court ac- into consideration (2) sustained,” loss amount of its award. admiralty. is in not, of In such a the court should case pecuni- sensibly, Logically if the course, allow interest on such amount. for ary Mrs. Stiles loss to Here, however, plain made its ex- an $250,000,based on husband her pectancy finding meas- fair the award was a years date from 20.2 pecuniary ure Mrs. loss as Stiles’s value death, full not she will receive death, the date her husband’s not re- if she does for her terest after award until ceive complete. make recovery Although years later. one-half four and long Interest from has in connection the date of loss made the statement was following allowed, loss, admiralty course, been property property lan- with Cir., guage aptly expresses Natchez, loss. correct 78 F. Corp. thought: Geotechnical Delaware * * “* Co., Cir., Pure Oil Damage F.2d is sustained allowance except such interest rule dam- date. What as of certain age may good Admiralty cause shown. affected and is not estimated, footing thus stands on a different the time when but respect, the common damage law in found, for the and an award is as general equiv- rule common law had tradi- on one is not the made date tionally pre-judgment been that interest ear- alent an made at an award *6 unliquidated could not delay be allowed on an into lier date. thus enters The loss, tort claim. See for a discussion of this an element of award as the late distinction, damage a Moore-McCormack Lines v. for and the awarded is Amirault, Cir., 893, 1 202 F.2d see equivalent of what and sum which is the for a discussion modern if more a smaller sum would have been ” ** * trend, actions, even in common law The awarded. earlier 343, Manhattan, 427, 429, page note in 36 Cir., A.L.R.2d where 3 85 F.2d at 345 it is said: certiorari United v. denied States Bessemer, 654, 57 S.Ct. pe- “Where the are of a 432, 81 L.Ed. 864. cuniary character and measur- are simply money restitu- This is the doctrine of able in tainty, with reasonable cer- long leading integrum, tio maxim in trend modern deci- applied admiralty courts. Presi- sions seems to be to allow interest Madison, Cir., 835, right. gener- Thus, 9 91 845- dent F.2d as matter of quite party ally speaking, is 847. It obvious suf- interest is that allowable fering right loss from financial death as a matter in actions of just winner, trespass, trover, a bread as from destruc- replevin, or and in * * * ship, placed proceedings. of a can tion position same condemnation According previously enjoyed only he as to most cases whenever part if the award is at is made the time interest allowed as a damages, if interest loss or for time between it runs from the date of payment injury to, detention, loss and is allowed. loss, or or of, property destruction in- arising find no federal We case under volved.” expressly this statute decides Lacking any whether interest from of death federal date decisions under may provide act, added in order to fair heavily this relies airline aon just compensation. quite It is and clear New York applied State decision which many High that with as uncertain as factors the Death litigation. Seas in Act Wyman are for consideration there In v. Pan American Inc., 963, light Airways, 43 N.Y.S. common Misc. these statutes 947, 420, App.Div. 2d affirmed law rule on injuries where interest because 878, injuries 459, consequences 293 N.Y. and N.Y.S.2d affirmed up 785, be- denied 324 U.S. and N.E.2d 882, certiorari continue yond of trial date figure 1029, 1432 the would be much easier to it stat This the said New York court held: “As date of trial. interest, simple provision it no ute contains for would not be so the case may statute, allowed oc- not be death follows interest entire where the * * curs one [181 on the herein time is measured as verdict and 963, time.6 It is understandable Misc. 43 N.Y.S.2d also 423.] apply rule that the court would the same Appellant also relies federal on the Act, interest Jones under Act, 46 Jones cases decided under the particular for death whether the suit was Employ- Federal U.S.C.A. and the suffering injury pain Liability Act, ers’ Typical 45 U.S.C.A. §§ brought in ad- whether the suit was miralty M., Chicago, P. St. of these are court. or on the side of the law Cir., Busby, F.2d & P. R. Co.v. hand, equally On other under- is it Line, 2 Insular v. Baltimore Cortes Congress created a standable that when 526, holding judgments Cir., 66 F.2d “pecuniary of action for loss” in- include statutes cannot only solely an death it as created judg- period preceding terest for the admiralty action it intended for from this ment. also the case There governed admiralty by the traditional which holds allowance of circuit conception element of interest as an admiralty, discretionary terest In loss suffered claimant. Towing it. Co. disallowed Brennan, Sabine case, Congress clearly intend' did Cir., a Jones for..full, provide, compensation for the admiralty. tried Act case loss; and, above, explained have as.we court, New York With deference carry clear the courts cannot this out language of the we conclude that taking account the without into mandate inadequacy clearly here for statute construction delayed compensation. interest the date allows necessary provide “fair as an element Moreover, apparent *7 compensation pecuniary just for the and precedent set no has to the con Court sustained,” court trial loss where the Towing trary. case, In the su Sabine clearly increment showed that no such using pra, Appeals of Court was its the principal included in award. the denying interest, in own discretion rath clear- Act and FELA cases are The Jones reversing er than discretion exercised distinguishable ly of in each because in the trial court. This was accord with Congress cause action created a formerly them held Courts of the idea Appeals the (though plaintiff Act at law may the Jones power try admiralty- to had admiralty), which, in to sue longer elect novo. Such rule no cases de a moreover, comprehends of the States, McAllister v. United obtains. suffering pain plaintiff recover for to 75 S.Ct. injuries up to of trial the date judgment is The quite understand- It is to future. as Congress may have enacted Affirmed. able cases, Act and FELA even In the Jones U.S.C.A. § to beneficiaries. injured person Louis, has died be- where the Iron Mountain & St. Southern may Craft, jury trial still have to fore the Co. U.S. pain computation and suffer- with deal L.Ed. 1160. in- The period ing might a continued over which terest in such case be an unde- to, time, join may sirably confusing assignment give since the administrator to pain suffering average jury. of the de- claim with his claim for ceased amounts, upon judgment Judge (dissent- its verdict and CAMERON, Circuit judging in therefore, opinion, my in ing) to . the dark. my not, in us The record does before Among sharply contested issues opinion, sufficiently present issues con- law before was whether to court bound the trial law court below was appellee reaching recover one-half to enable entitled decision sider in its earnings prospective intelligently upon conten- pass us husband’s right.2 opinion does parties. as a matter of because tions This so i.e., in question, court not decide whether complete this trial of the failure Statute, separately which its suit under Federal this the facts find recovery, required fixes Louisi- the limits as conclusions of law Admiralty Mari- ana control or but, State Statute would Rules Practice in consideration; heard the below entitled time Cases.1 The court August ap- accept arguments quotation, on above it seems and the study respect pellee’s position 4, 1958, with it. and held the case decree, major- support of the two cases cited ity’s it filed its in until October 17 when problem merely are tax in favor to this reference authority appellee’s against Air- I cases. find no of Mrs. National Stiles and opinion $250,000.00 for the brief or in the application “in sum of Court’s lines the full ” * * * of the Louisiana Stat- here argument From the would ute. oral The amount case award of the appellee posi- assumed that takes the depend necessarily upon would how that, if fact-finder concluded questions several of law decided averaged net that decedent would have earnings sharp parties took issue. to which year pe- per $50,000 for the fact, appellant’s I In tentions, con- as understand expectancy, should auto- riod matically attack court’s it does not to the widow one-half award fixing of its discretion in exercise damages. by way of that only damages, amount of but recovery per- law, recovery clusion elements of under this If such be the large extremely beneficiary living law. The ver- mitted federal act vastly recovery court could dict rendered only Louisiana would by exceed justified, appellant contends, living just beneficiary person of a finding Mississippi. all facts in its favor line across the state concluding ques- contravenes, my opin- the widow and all of the a result Such teachings cases, ion, tions of law in her favor. We are left all of the inkling acts, of the court’s deci- of which without this series points pass Liability Employers’ sion of law. To isAct one Federal *8 (a) fol- 46%, provides 1. Rule 28 U.8.O.A. tlie no account Mrs. Airline takes lowing : half community property interest, Stiles’ “Findings right, fact and conclusions all of her husband’s in in her own deciding earnings, (b) admiralty In cases of and law. the fact that Mrs. Stiles or jurisdiction court of first maritime would have heir, her husband’s sole as facts and specially shall find the instance balance of his saved earn- inherited ings its conclusions law separately death.” .state natural his findings and and its conclusions thereon; majority question to this The refers in if an and, ap- of record be entered shall a contention would these words: “Such decree, shall taken from be peal deprive the trial to in the clerk the record which by included give community proper- effect to the court under appellate to the is certified Louisiana which ty laws 49.” rule declaring the effect of that one half have belongs position: states her current income thus the husband’s Appellee are Bender computations Airline’s the wife. See “First, Pfaff, to cash contributions Suc- only on U.S. 127, based Wiener, received from 203 La. 14 So.2d actually Mrs. Stiles cession which during The lifetime. 475.” husband damages upon based. which en- the award often most the first and the one do The failure court below so to uni- countered, to insure enacted was judg- requires, my opinion, its all in formity residents of to of treatment requires by ment be different reversed and states unaffected fortiori put approval upon it. we do our applying states.3 several rules obligatory Admiralty Rule made it 46% appellee which to Whether the award findings upon enter its court to contributions limited was entitled to law, fact and and I know conclusions of probably made to have decedent would litigant practice puts of no which any pro- experience upon and her based submitting requested default for not earnings; future bative as to findings, by requested unless court to include4 amount should whether 52(a), do Rule so.5 Fed.R.Civ.P. accumulation, one- to her as “such both specificallyexempts parties C.A. from rules, community property half under any obligation findings request fact well, part [which] and of his also law, and Professor conclusions of by might ultimately inherited states, Moore Prac- 7 Moore’s Federal wife;” should rate the discount whether tice, Edition, page 4431, 2d has. that “it appel- by per cent, as contended four generally Admiralty been held that such arriving present lant, cash value at the given Rules should be same construc- sus- pecuniary loss” the widow of “the given as that to identical Rules of decedent, pres- by all tained the death Civil Procedure.” argued earnestly questions of law ent recently6 judgment We vacated a and! supported parties in most both admiralty remanded an case to dis- authority. respectable instances solely trict court because of its failure to to resolve trial court was bound findings make Admiralty fact and conclusions questions under of law and required by 46%, quoting of law as Rule required its down to set Rules it was Supreme stating from a Court decision ap- which it facts to conclusions and the “that findings, there must be ei- stated reaching upon plied the result them in opinion separately, ther the court’s predicated. which which are sufficient indicate the fac- hearing record tual basis covered for ultimate conclusion.” At the presented was only issue before us appellee. go ma- with the I unable also to am juries commonly fixed Damages jority au- matter of are on the interest. they entitled are not to convinc- thorities it cites me the elements are carefully spelled out ing. advised, I am has al- are As far as consider damages charge. are judgments ways Where for been the law court’s can, court, said carry unliquidated do not inter- awarded Rules, find- include in its rendition,7 prior less than no do est their ings the elements conclusions will not be allowed terest injuries thus general ployee F.E.L.A. law under Am.Jur., 3. The his own and Serv- representatives Master an in 35 stated in actions 519, pp. there ant, employee “While 949-950: killed or who dies who is controversy inj'uries received, been considerable benefit of *9 has damages re- designated the measure kin in the statute.” next of Feder- action in an coverable 4. As the maj'ority seems to think. Act, Liability Employers’ now set- it is al City, Cir., 1941, 122 F.2d measure of 5. The Plow tled provisions according 816, 819. determined general com- n and the itself the Act Co., Inc., Victory Towing v. Bordelon. 6. federal administered law as mon courts, 540, 1955, F.2d 541. legislation unaffected Damages, 161, pp. Am.Jur., 579— This is true 7. 15 state courts. decisions respect em- actions both :in nothing in the personal injuries.8 I find majority opinion coun- briefs or in the departure so sel warrant radical principle. If

from so well established

Congress so drastic intended had

-change, stat- so in have said it would Co., B. ute. v. J. Preston Funkhouser 134, 168-169, 163, & Arkansas and Louisiana

L.Ed. Pratt, Cir., Co. v.

153 A.L.R. 851. respectfully I

For these reasons dis-

sent.

INTERNATIONAL-GREAT NORTHERN COMPANY, Appellant, RAILROAD

UNITED America, STATES of Appellee.

No. 17575. Appeals

United States Court of

Fifth Circuit.

June general 8. “The against master, rule party is that interest will where the caus- not be injuries. ing injury allowed on could not be benefited. *10 ” * * * Thus, improperly- Am.Jur., Damages, interest personal injuries pp. caused 587-588. negligence injuries