Campbell v. City of Jackson MS

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published
and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
April 21, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________________
No. 03-60181
_______________________
DAVID CAMPBELL,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CITY OF JACKSON MISSISSIPPI, ET AL
Defendants,
CITY OF JACKSON MISSISSIPPI
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Southern District of Mississippi, Jackson
3:00-CV-604-WS
ON PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING
(Opinion 12/13/04, 5th Cir., __ F.3d ___)
Before GARZA, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
This Court has considered the petition for panel rehearing and response, and makes the
following revision:
(1) The case is REMANDED to the district court with instructions to allow appellant to
remit in accordance with this order, or for a new trial on the question of damages.
(2) The following text is substituted for Part II of the original opinion:
“II. The evidence does not support the jury's verdict of $60,000 in lost wages.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
The City asserts that there is no reasonable basis for an award of compensatory damages
of $60,000. The City argues that according to Campbell’s testimony, the appropriate amount of
compensation it should be liable for is approximately $4760 and, at most, between $8000 and
$9000. At trial, Campbell testified that he could have earned between $10,000 and $20,000 if he
had been allowed to work out of rank.
This Court applies a deferential standard to juries’ damage awards. “The damage award
may be overturned only upon a clear showing of excessiveness or upon a showing that the jury
was influenced by passion or prejudice.” Eiland v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 58 F.3d 176, 183
(5th Cir. 1995) (citing Westbrook v. Gen. Tire & Rubber Co., 754 F.2d 1233, 1241 (5th Cir.
1985)). If the evidence clearly does not support the award, this Court will order a remittitur. See
Brunnemann v. Terra Int’l, Inc., 975 F.2d 175, 178 (5th Cir. 1992) (holding that remittitur is the
appropriate remedy where a verdict is contrary to right reason but not the result of passion or
prejudice). We calculate the amount of the remittitur using this Circuit’s “maximum recovery
rule,” which limits the verdict to the maximum amount that the jury properly could have awarded
under the facts. Caldarera v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., 705 F.2d 778, 784 (5th Cir. 1983).
We conclude that the jury’s award of damages to Campbell is not supported by the
evidence. At trial, Campbell estimated that he might have been able to work as many as twenty
shifts from the “short list,” which was used for replacements for people who called in sick. If all
twenty shifts were for overtime pay, he would have earned $9520. He also argued that he could
have worked three shifts from the “long list,” which was used for extended absences, for which he
would have earned $6354. These figures add up to a total of $15,874. This number represents

-- 2 of 3 --

3
the highest possible amount that the jury could reasonably have believed that Campbell would
have earned.
Therefore, the jury’s award of $60,000 was excessive. Campbell may accept the remittitur
of damages to $15,874, or submit to a new trial limited to the issue of damages.”
The petition for rehearing is, except to this extent, DENIED. The petition for rehearing en
banc is DENIED, no member of the court having requested a poll.

-- 3 of 3 --