Logourl black
From our private database of 14,200+ case briefs...

Wilburn v. Maritrans GP Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
139 F.3d 350 (1998)


Facts

Michael Wilburn (plaintiff), while employed on a ship owned by Maritrans GP Inc. (Maritrans) (defendant), was swept off the deck during a storm. Wilburn was 38 years old and had been earning $44,000 a year as an able-bodied (AB) tankerman. Wilburn sued Maritrans, alleging negligence and unworthiness of the ship under general maritime law. After the incident, Wilburn still worked as an AB tankerman, compensating for his injuries by relying on his uninjured right arm and hand. At trial, experts testified that Wilburn’s trauma limited his economic opportunities. Dr. Steven Newman testified that Wilburn had permanent injuries to his left arm and shoulder that severely limited the mobility and use of his left arm and hand. Wilburn testified that the incident left him terrified of leaving the sight of land, also known as sailing coastwise. While Wilburn made several coastwise trips in good weather after the incident, he had not done so in bad weather. Wilburn also testified that he had applied to be a barge captain with a salary of $50,000 per year, but had been told he could not be a barge captain if he could not sail coastwise. Dr. Robert Sadoff testified that Wilburn’s fears were due to post-traumatic stress syndrome and that, to overcome those fears, Wilburn would have to go through a behavioral-desensitization program. This program would be impractical, according to Dr. Sadoff, because it would require the use of real commercial ships for therapeutic purposes. However, Dr. Sadoff also said that if Wilburn unexpectedly found himself in a storm on a coastwise ship, and Wilburn did not panic, this might be helpful in his recovery. The jury awarded Wilburn $1,000,000 for loss of future earning capacity. However, the district court granted Maritrans judgment as a matter of law, overturning the award of $1,000,000, because (1) there was insufficient evidence for a loss of future earning capacity and (2) $1,000,000 was excessive.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Alarcon, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 252,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,200 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.