The opinion of the court was delivered by: COHILL
This is an action under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 688, as amended, and the general maritime law, based on negligence and unseaworthiness of a vessel. The case has been tried to the Court non-jury by stipulation of counsel. Pursuant to Rule 52 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the following findings of fact and conclusions of law are entered.
Plaintiff, George Cheuvront, was born October 15, 1944. He holds a bachelor's degree from Geneva College; he also has a temporary teaching certificate. He has worked irregularly as a substitute teacher over the past several years. However, his primary employment has been for the defendant, The Pittsburgh and Lake Erie Railroad Company, with whom he has been continuously employed since March 23, 1967, at its Colona River Rail Transfer Facility. This facility is located on the Ohio River, a navigable waterway of the United States.
Defendant's operation at its Colona River Rail Transfer Facility involves the unloading of coal from barges and transferring it to railroad hopper cars for rail movement. Barges are delivered to Colona by river tow boats on the Ohio. Before unloading the barges, defendant moves them from the location where they are delivered to a point under a crane by which the coal is unloaded. Movement of the barges is performed by the use of a winch-operated barge shifter cable or by "rounding," a process which allows the river current to pivot a barge about as it is tied to another barge. Empty barges are removed from the unloaded barge fleet by river tow boats. Although the crane is stationery, all of the maneuvering of the barges at defendant's Colona facility is done on the Ohio River, and the barges are vessels in navigation.
Defendant's employees move the barges, make up lines for them, pump them, and otherwise control them from the time of their delivery to the loaded fleet to the time of their removal from the empty or unloaded fleet. These employees wear life jackets and use other seamen's gear. One of the specific jobs in this operation is that of "boat spotter" or "barge spotter." A boat spotter handles the various lines and cables involved in moving the barges. Although a boat spotter performs duties both on shore and on the barges, as much as 90% Of his time is spent on the barges I. e. on the river.
On September 6, 1977, plaintiff saw his family physician, Wayne Helmick, M.D. The treatment prescribed by Dr. Helmick was heat by hot water pad, bottle or shower. On September 10, 1977, plaintiff complained of pain in the lumbar area, which was diagnosed by Dr. Helmick as lumbar myositis. He was given a muscle relaxant and placed on a therapy program consisting of 32 treatments between September 12, 1977 and November 18, 1977.
On November 16, 1977, the plaintiff was examined by John K. Radler, M.D., an orthopedic surgeon on the referral of Dr. Helmick. Dr. Radler advised plaintiff to return to full time work as of November 21, 1977, without restriction, and gave him a slip to return to work.
On November 30, 1977, plaintiff, complaining of pain in his back and limitation of motion, again saw Dr. Helmick. Dr. Helmick testified that the patient could control the motions of his back in flexion and extension. He accepted plaintiff's word concerning complaints of back pain although he did not make any objective findings. At that time, Dr. Helmick did not prescribe any treatment, and plaintiff thereafter did not receive any further treatment until after he returned to work on April 11, 1978. Dr. Helmick again saw plaintiff on April 7, 1978; at that time Dr. Helmick advised him to return to work. The parties have disputed whether plaintiff should have returned to work on November 21, 1978. This Court finds as a matter of fact that the plaintiff reasonably relied on the advice of his family doctor and was justified in not returning to work until April 11, 1978. See Restatement of Torts 2d 457.
Following his injury, plaintiff did not work from Sept. 4, 1977 to April 11, 1978, a period of 218 calendar days. The parties have stipulated that plaintiff was disabled from September 4 through November 20, 1977, and that, even had plaintiff returned to work, he would have been laid off from December 9 to December 26, 1977, and from January 17, 1978 to April 4, 1978, a total period of 95 days, due to a strike by another union.
The period from November 20, 1977 to April 11, 1978 (except for the strike-related lay-offs) has been disputed by the parties. Because we have found that plaintiff reasonably relied on his personal physician in not returning to work before April 11, 1979, we further find that he justifiably missed work due to injury related to the barge accident from September 4, 1977 to April 11, 1978, and is entitled to be compensated for lost wages for 123 work days (218 days minus 95 lay-off days) if the defendant is liable. We have credited all the calendar days as work days, giving plaintiff the benefit of the doubt of the uncertain scheduling in this industry. Evidence indicates that plaintiff worked more than a five-day week before the accident.
From the evidence submitted on plaintiff's substitute teaching, and the fact that such employment was erratic and unreliable, we can make no finding of fact on lost wages attributable to lost teaching opportunities.
Although the plaintiff suffered a serious and painful accident, it is impossible to assess accurately what long term effects, if any, he may endure. As is typical with a case involving a back injury, the experts have differed as to the seriousness of the harm. Likewise, the parties differ dramatically in projections of his future capacity. We find that the plaintiff has sustained pain, suffering, and inconvenience, particularly during the first few weeks following the accident, and that he may suffer recurring pain in the future. The extent of such pain, if any, cannot be objectively predicted on the evidence before us, nor can we easily predict any future loss of earning capacity where plaintiff has worked fairly regularly since April 11, 1978. We cannot find, as a matter of fact, that his earning capacity will be reduced over the balance of his remaining work life, nor can we say that there is any relationship between the injury and his ability to teach sufficient to enable him to establish future earning loss in that area.
On the other hand, medical testimony, although not establishing future employment impairment, did establish the probability ...